Preamble

The House met at Half Past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (HEATING)

Captain John Crowder: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, if you have any statement to make about the lack of heating in the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Speaker: I regret that I have no statement to make; it is a matter quite outside my control. I understand there is a strike on, which, I believe, is unofficial, but I know no more than I have seen in the newspapers and that I was unable to get a hot bath this morning.

Mr. Gallacher: Would it be permissible for this House to express its deep sympathy with those who are on strike, and the hope that their demand will be met at the earliest possible moment?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could you, Sir, give us any advice on how to keep warm until this unfortunate matter is settled?

Air-Commodore Harvey: If this situation continues would you mind hon. Members wearing greatcoats, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I have often seen Members come into the House in greatcoats. It is not out of Order to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

New Colonial Office (Model)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works how soon he expects to place in the Library sketch elevations of the proposed new Colonial Office and a model

showing this building and part of Westminster Abbey in juxtaposition.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): I hope to be able to place sketch elevations and a model of the kind desired in the Library after the Summer Recess.

B.I.S.F. Houses (Contracts)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Minister of Works if he has investigated the system of nominated middlemen stipulated in contracts for the erection of B.I.S.F. houses in Wolverhampton, about which the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton wrote to his Department on 28th October last; and what steps have been taken to correct the excessive distribution charges for housing components which this system imposes.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend's suggestion was that the facts should be reported to the Committee of Inquiry on the Distribution of Building Materials and Components, and this was done. The case will be considered in the light of the Committee's Report.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the information I supplied to him on this occasion is that the middleman's margin on taps, which cost 5s. 4d. to produce, is 3s. 10d.? Does he consider that this kind of margin is reasonable, and in view of the fact that several months have elapsed while the Committee have been considering this can urgent steps be taken to deal with and reduce these excessive margins?

Mr. Key: The Committee have had this point before them, and when their report has been investigated I shall go further into the matter.

Hans Crescent Hotel

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Works when it is expected to release the Hans Crescent Hotel, at present used as a transit centre for European voluntary workers recruited from the Continent.

Mr. Key: I regret I cannot give a date for the release of this hotel. So far, it has not been possible to find alternative accommodation.

Commander Noble: Could the right hon. Gentleman assure us that every effort is being made to find alternative accommodation, as it seems wrong that this valuable accommodation should not be made available to the public?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, we are making every effort we can.

Mr. Keeling: In view of the great shortage of hotel beds in Chelsea and Westminster, is it really necessary for this training centre to be in London at all?

Mr. Key: If we could get alternative accommodation we should do without hotels, but at present we cannot.

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what these European voluntary workers learn at the Hans Crescent Hotel?

Building Repair Licences (Limit)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Works whether he will now issue more licences for building maintenance repairs and minor works, so as to avoid unemployment amongst building workers in' particular areas; and in what circumstances such additional licences will be granted.

Mr. Key: The White Paper on Capital Investment in 1948 drew attention to the necessity for strict control of this licensing so as not to impede the transfer of resources to more essential purposes. In future, therefore, if it appears that the restriction on new work will make more building workers available for maintenance, repair and minor works than would be employed at the former level of licensing the Regional Director of my Department will consult the Regional Controller of the Ministry of Labour about the possibilities of alternative employment. If the Ministry of Labour advise that alternative employment is available on essential work in the building industry or in other industries the level of licensing of maintenance, repair and minor works of a less urgent character will be restricted, so that the employment exchanges may offer the men employment on other essential work. If, on the other hand, alternative employment in essential work will not be available, additional licences for maintenance, repair and minor works will be issued.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be the closest consultation between the two Departments concerned, so that these remedies may be put in hand before the unemployment actually arises?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. That will take place not only at the centre, but in the regional organisations as well.

Mr. Drayson: Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that the unemployed building operatives will be directed to other employment in connection with the building industry?

Mr. Key: No, Sir. I mentioned no such term as directed.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not desirable that the local authority should be given more latitude, because the local authority on the spot can tell whether unemployment is rife or not?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. As the answer implies, the local authority will be given authority to increase the licences in their area to absorb such unemployed as cannot be provided with alternative employment in essential industries.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a case, typical of many, in part of my own Division where there are houses now uninhabitable, which for £60 or £70 could be made habitable? The material and labour are readily available, but we cannot get licences.

Mr. Key: The licensing lies with the local authority in the area concerned.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. I think that the Minister replied under a misunderstanding. The local authorities are limited. They would give the licences for them, but the Ministry of Works will not let them.

Mr. Key: That is not a true statement of the facts.

Sir W. Smithers: It is.

Mr. Key: The point is that in each of the zonal areas concerned, conferences are held with the local authorities, and the available labour in the area is apportioned among the local authorities, who have the power to license up to that limit.

Mr. Assheton: Is it not the case that each local authority has been given a specific limit up to which it can spend, and that these limits are very low indeed and are causing the greatest possible embarrassment to local authorities all over the country?

Mr. Key: These limits are settled by the zonal conferences, and the local authorities licence to the full extent of the labour available in the areas concerned.

Mr. Assheton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Key: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head, that is the basis on which the zonal conference is worked.

Mr. Assheton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that, although the zonal conferences may have a certain amount of money to distribute among the different authorities—and we do not dispute that—we dispute that the total amount of work distributed will absorb the labour and materials available in these localities?

Mr. Key: As I have already pointed out, it is not on the basis of money that distribution is made. It is on the basis of available building trade labour in the areas concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN RECOVERY PROGRAMME

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will extend invitations to acknowledged leaders in exile of suppressed constitutional parties in communist-dominated countries in Europe that have refused invitations to take part in discussion of the Marshall Plan to come as observers to the forthcoming conference to discuss the European Recovery Programme.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): No, Sir. The meeting in Paris today is a Conference of the Governments that are prepared to take part in the European Recovery Programme. It would not be appropriate for individuals to be invited.

Major Beamish: Would not such distinguished men as Mr. Mikolajczyk, Mr. Peyer and Dr. Topalovich be most valuable as observers at the forthcoming conference, so that they could advise on important questions of trade between Western Europe and the Soviet bloc?

Mr. Mayhew: However distinguished, it would not be appropriate to invite individuals. In any case, it would not be a

matter for His Majesty's Government but for all the member Governments.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the Minister aware that these leaders in exile are far more representative of their countries than many of those in power in those countries?

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations have been held with, and what communications received from, the American State Department, since the decision was arrived at to recall the 16-Nations Conference in Paris on 15th March.

Mr. Mayhew: We are in constant touch with the United States Government on matters of common interest; but I am really not in a position to enumerate all the consultations that have taken place and the communications that have passed between our two Governments in the last fortnight. But, if my hon. Friend intends only to refer to official consultations with or communications about the forthcoming meeting in Paris of the Committee of European Co-operation the reply is, "None, Sir."

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is there any truth in the Press report that the State Department have used pressure by clandestine means to persuade His Majesty's Government and European Governments to accept the point of view of the State Department?

Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to ask the Minister whether a Press report is correct?

Mr. Speaker: Not as a main Question, but as a supplementary question it is in Order.

Mr. Mayhew: Since the Press reports are wholly inconsistent with what I have just stated, they are untrue.

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will either alone or in association with allied or friendly Powers, guarantee such immediate military assistance as may be required to safeguard the survival of the existing democratic and constitutional government in every country prepared to participate in the Marshall Plan.

Mr. Mayhew: The policy of Western Union, which my right hon. Friend


announced on 22nd January, was designed to fortify democratic governments in Europe, and my right hon. Friend has the problem of security constantly in mind. But democratic institutions cannot be safeguarded merely by military agreements: and my right hon. Friend feels that the proper function of the European Recovery Programme is in the economic field.

Mr. Donner: In view of the grave danger of a Communist coup in Italy, will the Minister say that His Majesty's Government will not idly acquiesce in the creation of yet another unconstitutional Soviet satellite State?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the argument now being put forward is, "If you cannot beat their arguments, beat their brains out"?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Scientists (Travel to South America)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a number of former S.S. officers, Luftwaffe pilots, Nazi technicians and others have been able to travel surreptitiously from Germany to South America, in some cases with the organised assistance of political sympathisers with Nazism and Fascism in Spain; and what steps he is taking to check this traffic.

Mr. Mayhew: An attempt to smuggle to South America a team of 15 German scientists and engineers connected with the aircraft industry was discovered in November, 1947, and it is thought that the leader of the team and his secretary may have succeeded in reaching South America through Denmark before the conspiracy was unmasked. This is the only case of which my right hon. Friend has evidence but if my hon. Friend has information about other cases we will be very glad to look into the matter.

Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend say whether any further action has been taken, by diplomatic representations to the South American nations concerned, in respect of the team which he says did get through?

Mr. Mayhew: We are awaiting police reports from Copenhagen, and when we

have these we shall see whether some protest might be appropriate.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us for our own information how we can possibly travel surreptitiously?

Wehrmacht Pensions

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds the payment of long-service pensions earned by former members of the German Wehrmacht has been suspended; and whether he intends that the payment of such pensions shall recommence under the new bizonal administrative arrangements.

Mr. Mayhew: The abolition of Wehrmacht long-service pensions was ordered by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in May, 1945, and subsequently confirmed by Control Council Law No. 34, as part of the general Allied policy to destroy the German military machine. A scheme authorising the payment of maintenance grants in cases of special hardship to career military personnel was approved in principle last month by the Military Governors of the British and American zones.

Mr. Vane: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the abolition of pensions in this way is a futile method of trying to destroy a war machine; secondly, it is not likely to command respect amongst the Germans as evidence of our sense of justice; and, finally, is he not aware that his argument is of the same class as those which the Nazis used about the Jews?

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot accept the implication in the supplementary question. I do not dispute that cases of special hardship did occur as a result of the action taken but, as I said in the last part of my reply, we have now worked out a scheme which we think will meet the cases mentioned here.

Mr. Warbey: Can my hon. Friend say whether arrangements have been made to ensure that pensions are paid to officers and other ranks who were engaged in anti-Nazi activities?

Mr. Mayhew: I should not like to anticipate the terms of the scheme which before long will be published.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these officers


and men earned their pensions as soldiers before the war, and surely in every sense of justice are entitled to them? We should not expect the Germans to take away the pensions of our men.

Trade (Dollar Payments)

Mr. Parkin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will seek arrangements to ensure that purchases from Germany, many of which can be re-exported, shall not have to be paid for in dollars.

Mr. Mayhew: Trade between the sterling area and the Combined zone is in practice conducted on a sterling basis. Under the terms of the revised Fusion Agreement of last December, however, any adverse quarterly balance either way in excess of £1½ million is settled in dollars. This arrangement covers all trade between the two areas, including entrepôt trade.

Mr. Parkin: Is not my hon. Friend aware that this makes it extremely difficult for British merchants to establish trade in Germany and elsewhere in the world, and that this appears to restrict still further the trade of this country and the chance of merchants earning a living?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not dispute that there is some force in that, but it is hard to maintain over a certain level that Germany should continue to accumulate sterling balances.

Banned Newspaper

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the "Westdeutsches Volksecho," of Dortmund, has been banned for six weeks; and if he can give an assurance that objective, factual criticism of the American and British administration is not now being suppressed in the Western zone.

Mr. Mayhew: The Communist newspaper "Westdeutsches Volksecho" was banned for six weeks for flagrant violation of the Control Council Directive No. 40. This is a quadripartite law designed to prevent the publication of statements aimed at disrupting unity amongst the Allies. Objective factual criticism has always been and always will be allowed in the British zone.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister place in the Library a copy of the particular

issue of which he complains so that hon. Members will be able to see that it published nothing but factual material and factual criticism?

Mr. Mayhew: I am prepared to send the hon. Member a copy and if there is sufficient public demand for it I shall be willing to put one in the Library.

Prisoners (Examination)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will issue instructions prohibiting British intelligence officers in Germany from threatening prisoners with the death of their wives in order to extract information from them.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I am informed that no instructions authorising such practices have ever been issued by any Government department.

Mr. Harris: In view of the statements made in the court last week by a British colonel that it is perfectly proper to threaten German prisoners with the death of their families in order to get information from them, will the Minister say whether that method is approved, and whether it will be adopted in this country also?

Mr. Mayhew: The method is certainly not approved; but I would not like to comment upon the statement in question, because the case is sub judice.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the public are rather disturbed by a series of incidents in which British Service personnel have been involved in allegations of behaving badly towards Germans in Germany? In such cases, would he use his influence to bring the personnel concerned back to this country, where they can do no further harm in that direction?

Mr. Mayhew: That is another general allegation without supporting evidence, which I am very sorry that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Nutrition Committee (Findings)

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the most recent findings of visiting teams of experts on the nutritional state of the people living in the western zones of Germany.

Mr. Mayhew: Late last autumn, the members of the Combined Nutrition Committee reported that the state of nutrition of the urban population in the western zones of Germany had improved during the previous six months, though this does not, of course, mean that the standard is in the least satisfactory. Famine oedema was stated to be very rare and adult body weights had not declined. The findings of the Combined Nutrition Committee have been confirmed by a survey of representatives of the Medical Research Council carried out in November last.

Mr. Hastings: Will the result of the survey carried out by members of the Medical Research Council be published?

Mr. Mayhew: The survey was made for the personal guidance of the Commander-in-chief and there is no intention of publishing it.

Mr. Hastings: Would it not be of great interest to the public, in view of the disquieting statements that are received from many directions about the nutritional state of Germany?

Mr. Mayhew: I am not sure that the report is suitably produced and in a suitable form for publication. If further information is required on this matter I would be glad to make a reply of greater length at Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA

Diplomatic Documents (Publication)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange for the diplomatic documents covering the period from the occupation of Austria in March, 1938, to the outbreak of war to be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Mayhew: This question is at present under consideration and I am not yet in a position to make any announcement.

Mr. Harris: When the documents relating to the 1914 war were published, the first to appear was No. 13, dealing with the immediate period before the outbreak of war, and will the Minister consider the advisability of following that course in this case?

Mr. Mayhew: There are pros and cons in this, but we shall bear the point in mind.

Professor Savory: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that owing to the publication of the Austrian Chancellor's memoirs—the memoirs of Mr. Schuschnigg—the importance of publishing these documents is very great?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, we have noticed that, and the fact that other versions are being published soon after the war is influencing us as to whether or not we should speed up publication as suggested.

Mr. Cocks: In considering the matter, will my hon. Friend ante-date the period to include the report of Lord Halifax's secret mission to Germany?

Abductions

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the frequent cases of abduction of Austrian citizens in the British zone by forces of the occupying powers; and what action he will take to put a stop to these attacks on civil liberties in Austria.

Mr. Mayhew: There is, of course, no question of the abduction of Austrian citizens from the British zone by British Forces, but my right hon. Friend has long been aware of the deplorable fact that abductions are taking place in Austria. Recently an important official of the Austrian State Railways who was due to attend an international conference at Geneva disappeared, and there have been further cases since. These abductions have always occurred either in the Soviet zone of Austria or in Vienna in circumstances in which the British authorities are, unfortunately, unable to intervene. We have, however, constantly striven, and shall continue to strive, to bring about the restoration of normal conditions of life in Austria.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Is my hon. Friend aware that these abductions are going on? Another one is stated in the Press today to have taken place. Cannot any stronger action be taken to prevent the continuance of these appalling affairs?

Mr. Mayhew: We agree that these abductions are taking place and are deplorable. The difficulty is to know what effective action we can take. As I have explained they do not take place


in the British zone but in the Soviet zone of Austria and very often they are done in circumstances where intervention by our authorities is not possible. In those circumstances we find it difficult to suggest to the House an effective way of stopping it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AGREEMENTS, EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (WAR POTENTIAL)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that His Majesty's Government Is not a party to any trade agreements calculated to increase the war potential of Communist-dominated countries in Europe in relation to the war potential of the democracies, and if he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not enter into any such agreements.

Mr. Mayhew: Warlike material of every kind requires an export licence under Group 17 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order, 1947. Nothing in this group has been or would be included in any trade agreement with a Communist-dominated country.

Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a very considerable body of pro-British sentiment in the United States has expressed very grave anxiety on this particular point, and would he say whether that anxiety is unnecessary?

Mr. Mayhew: I have explained the position in my reply.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. There is a point on which I should like your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. When an hon. Member on this side of the House quoted feeling in France he was called out of Order, but when an hon. Member on the other side quotes feeling in America, it seems to be quite in Order.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Member is not making any reflection on me; if so he himself is quite out of Order.

Mr. Donner: Would the Minister say whether the Foreign Secretary approves of the inclusion of large quantities of war potential in the Anglo-Soviet trade agreement?

Mr. Mayhew: The goods I have mentioned are covered in the Export of Goods (Control) Order, but it depends on the

definition. Almost any form of trade can be regarded as increasing the war potential of a country, and the policy of this Government is to increase trade with Eastern Europe.

Mr. Donner: But did the Foreign Secretary approve of the draft of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (COLONIAL POLICY)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an assurance that co-operation between Britain and France on Colonial questions will not involve support for the suppression of national independence movements in Indo-China and Madagascar.

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot accept the criticism of our French allies implied in the Question; but I can assure my hon. Friend that co-operation in colonial matters has been confined to the economic and social fields.

Mr. Bramall: Will my hon. Friend assure us that he will not give support to any Colonial policy less enlightened than that which we ourselves have pursued with regard to India, Burma and Ceylon.

Mr. Piratin: Would the Minister say in this connection that while there is no agreement with France with regard to oppression in the French Colonies, there is at the same time no continuation of the persecution going on in the Gold Coast?

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot accept the implications of that, and I would like notice of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE AND CHILE (BASES, ANTARCTIC)

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the number and location of all Argentinian and Chilean bases, whether military, naval, scientific or commercial, recently established on British territory in the Antarctic; whether, and where, any foreign military or naval detachments remain, and what steps he now proposes to take to ensure their early removal.

Mr. Mayhew: Since January, 1947, Argentine bases have been established at


Gamma Island in the Melchior Group of the Palmer Archipelago, at Deception Island in the South Shetlands group of the Falkland Islands Dependencies, and at Admiralty Bay on King George Island, also in the South Shetland Group. Chilean bases have been established in the same period at Greenwich Island in the South Shetlands and at a point on the North East coast of Trinity Peninsula in Graham Land. It is understood that all these posts are at present occupied by members of the Argentine or Chilean forces.
As the House will be aware, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to refer the question of disputed sovereignty in this region to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, whereas the Argentine and Chilean Governments have proposed an International conference to discuss a settlement. Despite the fact that these Governments are at present unwilling to accept our proposals for ending this dispute, my right hon. Friend remains hopeful that we shall make progress by friendly discussion, and that no question will arise of the removal of the Argentine and Chilean parties.

Mr. Donner: Would the Minister make it plain that we cannot be expected to tolerate indefinitely the presence of these foreign Forces on our territory?

Mr. Mayhew: Our attitude has been well expressed by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Driberg: Could my hon. Friend say whether the conspiracy disclosed in his very interesting answer to Question No. 13, and other similar activities, are thought by the Foreign Office to have any bearing on this particular subject?

Mr. Mayhew: I cannot accept the implications of that question, at any rate until we have the police reports, to which I referred in my reply to that Question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister tell us whether a Communist plot has been discovered yet in the Antarctic?

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Could my hon. Friend tell us what bases now occupied by the Argentine and Chile were originally occupied by British Forces, naval, military or air?

Mr. Mayhew: I should want notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (VARKIZA AGREEMENT)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government still considers itself bound by the terms of the Varkiza agreement.

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government did not sign the agreement and cannot, therefore, be bound by its terms.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the fact that the terms of the agreement between the two parties are, in fact, officially guaranteed by the British Government, can my hon. Friend still persist that we are bound by that guarantee?

Mr. Mayhew: The answer is that we have not signed, and we are not bound by it.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) played a distinguished part in the making of the agreement, and that it has been broken by successive Greek governments without any protest being made by the British Government?

Mr. Mayhew: It is certainly true that we facilitated the forming of the agreement, one of the terms of which was that the E.L.A.S. forces should be demobilised.

Mr. Pritt: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether His Majesty's Government still consider themselves bound by their guarantee?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not accept without notice the implication of the guarantee being binding on us.

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIAN-GREEK FRONTIER (INSPECTION)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to carry out an inspection of the zone on the Bulgarian-Greek frontier which, under Article 12 of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria is scheduled for demilitarisation.

Mr. Mayhew: On 5th February, the United States Minister in Sofia formally invited his British and Russian colleagues,


as co-guarantors of the peace treaty, to join him in inspecting the southern frontier of Bulgaria where according to Article 12 of the treaty the construction of permanent fortifications is forbidden. His Majesty's Minister was authorised to take part; but the Soviet Embassy replied that they considered that no fortifications existed there. The British and American Ministers have replied that it is their responsibility to make sure that this Article is still being implemented.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there can be only one reason for the Soviet's refusal to facilitate this inspection?

Major Beamish: Can the statement that no fortifications exist be a reason for not inspecting the area?

Mr. Molson: Will American and British Ministers be entitled under the Treaty to carry out an inspection by themselves, or is this another case where it is possible for Soviet Russia to impose a veto?

Mr. Mayhew: If the Soviet Embassy do not wish to join us, we shall certainly be prepared to carry out an inspection ourselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (WESTERN UNION PROPOSALS)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was proposed, at the talks recently held in Brussels, that Spain be invited to join the Western Union.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Malayan Tinned Pineapples

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food what were the imports of Malayan tinned pineapples in 1938 and what quantity he expects to import in 1948.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): We imported 1,696,251 cases in 1938. I cannot estimate imports for 1948, but the total production of the area is not expected to exceed 40,000 cases, for all markets.

Mr. Gammans: Can the hon. Lady assure the House that the reduction in

the supplies we are likely to get this year, as compared with before the war, is not due in any way to a shortage of tinplate?

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a big market for tinned pineapple, as he will realise, and that many countries are willing to pay very big prices for it. When that market is satisfied we are prepared to take any surplus.

Swedes and Turnips

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of turnips of last year's crop have been purchased in the Newcastle area by the three agents, Messrs. Maw, Gilroy and Todd; what were the prices given; what quantity is still undistributed; what quantity has been offered back to farmers; and at what price.

Dr. Summerskill: 2,435 tons were bought at a price of £7 per ton. None of these supplies has either been moved to store or distributed and arrangements are being made for the reserves created to be dispersed. Under these arrangements, growers have the option of being released from their contracts or of repurchasing the supplies of deliverable swedes bought. I understand that some 80 tons have so far been sold in this area at a price of £3 per ton.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that State purchase and the regulations issued as to the lifting of and storing of swedes and turnips are a laughing-stock among distributors and growers, and are causing great loss to the taxpayer?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The purchase of these swedes was a measure of insurance against a shortage of potatoes. Any loss incurred is, in my opinion, a premium that has to be paid for that insurance.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food why his instructions to lift and store turnips inside warehouses were cancelled; and on whose advice.

Dr. Summerskill: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member on 23rd February we arranged for some swedes to be stored as an emergency reserve. Since the emergency has not arisen, we cancelled the arrangements for storage.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the hon. Lady aware that swedes keep best in the ground, and that I can repeat here my supplementary question to the previous Question?

Dr. Summerskill: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir," and that is why we are keeping them in the ground.

Sugar (Brewers' Allocation)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Food how much sugar is being allocated to the brewers of beer during the current year; and what proportion this bears to the amount used by this industry during the year ended 30th June, 1939.

Dr. Summerskill: During the current year the allocation of refined sugar, invert sugar and glucose to the brewing industry will amount to 65,750 tons representing approximately 66 per cent. of the usage of the industry during the 12 months ending 30th September, 1939.

Mr. Hastings: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proportion of sugar allocated to the brewing industry is greater than that allocated to the soft drinks industry? Does she consider that that is desirable in the national interest?

Dr. Summerskill: We allocate sugar according to the demand. I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that as beer is less potent today we can forgive a little greater allocation of sugar.

Norwegian Shrimps

Major Wise: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of Norwegian shrimps have been imported into this country during the last four weeks; for how many more weeks will such importation continue; and if he is satisfied that the importation of foreign shrimps will not operate to the detriment of our own shrimping industry.

Dr. Summerskill: There have been no recent imports of Norwegian shrimps, but in the four weeks ended 6th March the trade has imported 88 tons of Norwegian prawns. We have agreed that imports up to 25 tons a week may continue at least until 30th June next. I am told that there is a ready demand both for these prawns and for British caught shrimps, and I do not think that the imports are harmful to the British producers.

Consumption (Statistics)

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: asked the Minister of Food what was the consumption in Great Britain for the first half of 1947 in pounds per head per annum of each of the kinds of food shown in Table XXVIII; and what was the daily intake for the first half of 1947 of each of the items shown in Table XXIX of the Economic Survey for 1948.

Dr. Summerskill: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Figures for the first half of 1947—


FOOD CONSUMPTION IN UNITED KINGDOM



1947 1st half.


(lb. per head per annum)


Dairy products (milk solids)
50.2


Meat (edible weight)
88.2


Fish, game, and poultry (edible weight)
33.5


Eggs and egg products (shell egg equivalent)
24.6


Oils and fats (fat content)
33.8


Sugar and syrups (sugar content)
78.2


Potatoes
296.5


Pulses and nuts
7.8


Tomatoes and fruit (fresh equivalent)
102.8


Vegetables
103.1


Grain products
241.0


Beverages
15.4


(daily intake)


Protein—



animal (gms.)
45.2


vegetable (gms.)
43.0


total (gms.)
88.2


Fat (from all sources) (gms.)
108.3


Visible fat (butter, margarine, lard, etc., fat content) (gms.)
42.1


Total energy value (calories)
2,870

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (AGRICULTURE)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that many thousands more than the 18,000 German prisoners of war whom it is proposed to retain have volunteered to remain in Britain as civilian agricultural workers; and if, in view of the continuing shortage of agricultural workers forecast in the Economic Survey for 1948, and the fact that the rural housing shortage cannot be fully dealt with in the immediate future, he will cause the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Labour, and the Secretary of State for War to make arrangements to retain a larger proportion of these


volunteers, while safeguarding the rights and conditions of employment of British agricultural workers.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Ministers concerned are looking into the possibilities of extending the civilianisation scheme to include additional Germans who are already employed whole-time by individual farmers and who could not at present be suitably replaced. It is not intended, however, to retain still more Germans for employment by agricultural executive committees.

Mr. Driberg: So long as the employment and housing of British farmworkers are safeguarded, is it not unwise and inhumane deliberately to send away thousands of good workers who were settling down here quite congenially, especially as many of them have no homes to go to?

The Prime Minister: That is just the point. One has to have regard to the amount of accommodation available. In any case, it is not desirable to extend committee labour further than has already been contemplated.

Wing-Commander Millington: How soon can a statement be made about the investigation, particularly as, in Essex, a very large number of prisoners of war want to stay in agriculture and that a very large number of farmers who can find no alternative British labour, are anxious to give them a home and would like to have them back?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot say when the proposed statement will be made. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is the Prime Minister aware that a large number of prisoners want to stay in this country and would be quite prepared to stay in their hostels after civilianisation and until accommodation was available? What is the objection to that?

The Prime Minister: These detailed questions had better be put on the Paper for the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the great importance of this matter, and the continuing shortage of agricultural workers, as shown in the Economic Survey, will my right hon. Friend consider at least defer-

ring the repatriations which are now pending while the matter is re-investigated?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is it not much more sensible to keep here the men who are trained in our methods of agriculture than to try to replace them by Poles and others who have to be completely trained, which training takes a long time and may not be so satisfactory?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLDS (COMMITTEE)

Mr. John Evans: asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the time that must elapse before the Report of the Departmental Committee on Leaseholds can be received, he will consider whether action should be taken to enable leases nearing their expiration, to be extended on the same terms as at present, in all cases where this is desired by the leaseholder.

Mr. David Jones: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that since the setting up of the Committee on Leasehold, a large number of notices have been served on tenants whose leases have expired to vacate their houses, in an attempt to circumvent the effect of this Committee's report; and what steps it is proposed to take to safeguard the tenure of such tenants pending the Report of the Committee.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am not aware that notices to quit have been served in anticipation of any expected report by the Leasehold Committee on tenants whose leases have expired. If my hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) will let me have details of any cases he has in mind I will arrange for them to be passed to the Committee for consideration. My hon. Friends are no doubt aware that the Committee can, by its terms of reference, submit interim reports on matters which appear to merit immediate attention and can therefore, at any time, recommend action either to prevent circumvention of a course the Committee proposes to adopt, or on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. J. Evans).

Mr. Evans: Is the Attorney-General aware that on an estate I know there are 50 leases which are about to expire? Is he aware that these leases are held by ordinary working men and that it will be a great hardship to them if they have to surrender their leases because their savings and their future will be jeopardised? Can some immediate action be taken to give these people protection?

The Attorney-General: I can assure my hon. Friend that we appreciate the importance of this matter, but it is extremely complicated and difficult, and owing to the infinite variety of the circumstances and the details of these lessees, it is impracticable to deal with them all by the apparently simple device suggested in these Questions. Whatever is done will require legislation which will have to be carefully considered, and we must await the advice of the Committee which is investigating the problem now, with, we hope, all possible expedition.

Mr. Janner: Pending the legislation or the consideration by the Committee of these matters, and in view of the very grave situation which exists and is likely to increase in the coming months, will my right hon. and learned Friend consult with the Minister of Health with a view to having requisitioning notices served on the landlords in order to enable the tenants to remain in their houses until the matter has been decided by the Committee?

The Attorney-General: That possibility has not been lost sight of.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the original reply mean that the Government will give legislative effect, if necessary, to any interim recommendations by the Committee?

The Attorney-General: We shall have to consider what the interim recommendations are.

Mr. George Thomas: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that notices are being given on a large scale in Cardiff to people whose leases are falling due within the next five years and that tenants are being asked to pay a purchase price of 175 years' lease or lose their homes which will be sold to somebody else in the meantime? Will he take action to protect these people?

Mr. Piratin: Perhaps the Attorney-General will give attention to this suggestion? If and when legislation is introduced, would it be possible to say whether such legislation should be retrospective? If the Attorney-General could make an announcement to that effect now, it might help in preventing landlords from taking advantage of the present situation. Will the Attorney-General make such a statement?

The Attorney-General: I cannot commit myself on Government legislation until we haze had the advice of the Committee which is considering all the aspects of this troublesome matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY AND CIVIL OFFENCES (TRIAL)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Attorney-General whether he proposes to take action to ensure that persons charged by the military authorities with offences which are also civil offences are brought to trial before an appropriate court when they are no longer subject to military law.

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. If and where offences are committed which are within the jurisdiction of civil courts in this country, although they may not be triable by military tribunals, appropriate action will be taken. The whole mattes is at present undergoing examination.

Mr. Bramall: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it will give considerable satisfaction to people to know that those against whom extremely serious offences are alleged will not go scot-free because they happen to be lucky enough to have got out of uniform before being caught?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Feedingstuffs

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the possibility of increasing the feedingstuffs ration and of varying its basis.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I am not yet in a position to add to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) on 1st March.

County Executive Committees (Accounts)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will cause to be published the profit and loss accounts of the Monmouthshire War Agricultural Executive Committee.

Mr. T. Williams: I presume the hon. Member has in mind the annual income and expenditure accounts which all county agricultural executive committees were required to prepare for 1946–47 and subsequent years. The accounts for 1946–47 are now being examined but to decision as to publication has yet been reached.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any conceivable reason why the public should not know whether these war agricultural executive committees are making a profit or a loss? Can he give any reason whatever why that knowledge should be denied to the public.

Mr. Williams: I do not need to tell the hon. Gentleman that these accounts will be dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee, so that the public will be aware of what is happening.

Prisoner-of-War Labour

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will endeavour to cause German prisoners of war who work on farms to make their working hours conform as nearly as possible to those of the ordinary agricultural workers, and so avoid the need for overtime payments to other workers who have to fit in with the prisoner of war working arrangements.

Mr. T. Williams: County agricultural executive committees have standing instructions to do everything possible to ensure that the hours of work of German prisoners coincide with the normal hours of work of farm workers.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister know that this is not being carried out? If he will come into Kent he will find that there is half-an-hour's difference between the time the German prisoners and the ordinary workers arrive? Can he correct this?

Mr. Williams: I know that in Kent a decision on hours was taken after consultation with the National Farmers' Union

and Workers Union, and the decision reached after those consultations applies all over Kent.

Mr. Bossom: That is not happening. There is half-an-hour's difference between the times at which the German prisoners and the ordinary workers arrive. Will the Minister put this right?

Mr. Williams: I understand that the contrary is the case.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of the prisoners of war remaining in this country are being allocated to individual farmers; and what to the farmworkers pools being organised by his agricultural committees.

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the number of prisoners of war allowed to remain in this country to the nearest convenient date; and what is the quota allotted to each of the three Ridings of Yorkshire.

Mr. T. Williams: In England and Wales up to 6th March, 14,952 German prisoners of war had been given civilian status as farm workers and 865 as domestic workers in German civilian hostels. Of the farm workers, 8,578 were in private farm employment and 6,374 in the employment of Agricultural Executive Committees The numbers of German civilian farm workers allocated to Yorkshire are: East Riding 338, North Riding 162 and West Riding 502.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers like to stick to the men they know and the men who know all about their work, and, having regard to this, is not the proportion in the farmworkers' pools rather too large? Would it not be better to let individual farmers enter into engagements with individual prisoners on a bigger scale?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend must be aware that we have never stood in the way of that happening.

Daffodil Bulbs (Storage)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he expects to publish the report on the storage treatment of daffodil bulbs for forcing.

Mr. T. Williams: No such report is being prepared for publication at present.

Mr. G. Williams: In view of the fact that these bulbs can be forced in the open without any cost and that it would save importing mimosa blooms from France, will the right hon. Gentleman hurry up the report, which is eagerly awaited by a large number of people?

Mr. T. Williams: I understand that at the recent demonstration at Gulval a large number of farmers were present. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep growers in touch with developments.

Land Army and European Workers

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that full use is being made by farmers of the available services of the W.L.A. and E.V.W.S.; and whether he has received any representations from C.A.E.C.s that the number in hostels already exceeds the demand.

Mr. T. Williams: I am anxious that committee labour should be more fully employed all the year round and also that farmers should take more Land Army members and E.V.W.'s into their own direct employment. As regards committee labour, local adjustments are made from time to time in consultation with committees, but in view of the demands of the agricultural expansion programme, I do not regard the number of committee workers as excessive.

Mr. Vane: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that he is not satisfied that full use is being made? Also, would he answer the second part of my Question whether he has had any representations made to him by the county agricultural executive committees?

Mr. Williams: I am quite satisfied that in some areas, particularly Westmorland, farmers are hesitant before they take members of the Women's Land Army, which I regret. That applies to many other areas. I hope that farmers will see the wisdom of using existing Women's Land Army labour, because unless they do so, they may be very short of labour in the summer.

Poultry (Advisory Committee)

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the disbandment

of the present Poultry (Stock Improvement) Advisory Committee, if he will state the number of meetings held; the percentage of attendance at those meetings; and whether any report will be made available of the work in which the committee was engaged.

Mr. T. Williams: The Poultry (Stock Improvement) Advisory Committee was appointed for a period of three years, and has recently been re-constituted. Eight full meetings were held during the period, with an average attendance of 83 per cent., in addition to 27 meetings of subcommittees, on whom the detailed work devolved. The Committee is a standing advisory committee, and reports are not necessarily published, but information of progress is given from time to time and a new poultry stock improvement plan drawn up by the Committee is being published shortly.

Timber Licences

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the Minister of Works with a view to expediting the granting of licences for timber for barns and other farm buildings, since at the present time, even when the county war agricultural executive committees have inspected and recommended there is a protracted delay.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir, though I am not aware that there is undue delay.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some Ministry of Works officials scale down the amount of applications and then find that the original amount asked for in the application is correct, and a great deal of delay is thereby caused? Surely, farmers should be allowed to have proper timber with which to build today? What is the matter? May I have an answer? The Minister of Works is present. Will he answer my Question now?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member will be good enough to bring to my notice any specific case, I will be glad to look into it.

Mr. De la Bère: May I see the right hon. Gentleman now?

Flood Prevention, Essex

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has


considered the request from the Essex County Council that work should be put in hand at once by the Lee Conservancy Board, such as deepening and dredging the Nazeing brook and Nazeing drain in order to prevent flooding; and what steps he is taking in the matter.

Mr. T. Williams: The Lee Conservancy Catchment Board are in negotiation with the Essex County Council about county council works necessary to prevent flooding at Nazeing. I understand that the two parties will be meeting again shortly, and they should, I think, be able to reach a settlement without my intervention.

Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people living in this area have had an extremely anxious time during the whole winter dreading a recurrence of last year's disastrous floods? Will he give an assurance that he will intervene if he feels that this work is going too slowly?

Mr. Williams: I would not hesitate to contact both the County Council and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board if I felt that they were neglecting what is their obvious duty.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHRIMPING INDUSTRY, KING'S LYNN

Major Wise: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that many of the shrimp fishermen of King's Lynn area have not gone out to sea during the last few weeks owing to the importation of foreign shrimps; that the shrimping industry in that area is seriously declining and will he look into the position with a view to taking adequate steps to ensure that the British shrimping industry does not cease to exist.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. There is no evidence that the shrimping industry is declining in the King's Lynn area, where 7,558 cwts. were landed in 1947 as against 3,600 cwts. in 1938.

Oral Answers to Questions — GLASGOW-EUSTON EXPRESS (ACCIDENT)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Transport if he has obtained a report on the recent Glasgow-Euston express fatality in which the engine driver was killed; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I have appointed a railway employment inspector to hold an inquiry into this accident, but until I have received his report I am unable to make a statement. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing sympathy with the relatives of the deceased driver and with the fireman who was seriously injured.

Mr. Collins: Has my right hon. Friend noted the report that the accident was due to the blowing out of a furnace or boiler; and that there have been a number of complaints among engine drivers about the condition of such equipment which they are using? Will my right hon. Friend pay particular regard to the fact that but for the heroism of the driver, to whom he rightly paid tribute, there might have been a large number of casualties.

Mr. Barnes: In these matters I think it advisable to wait until I have received the report of the expert inquiry.

Mr. Erroll: Was the boiler coal-fired or oil-fired fired?

Mr. Barnes: Coal-fired.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT USERS' CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Transport when the transport users' consultative Committees provided for under the Transport Act, are to be set up.

Mr. Barnes: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) on 8th March.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does my right hon. Friend realise the great urgency about appointing consultative committees in view of Ministerial interpretations of their responsibility to Parliament for answering questions; and the difficulty which consequently exists regarding the making of representations by Members?

Mr. Barnes: I am well aware of the need for these consultative committees, and, as I have indicated, the matter is being pursued as rapidly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Highway Code Booklets (Children)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Transport what special steps have been taken to educate children in the practice of the Highway Code.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): The continuing efforts of schoolteachers have lately been reinforced by the publication of two Children's Codes by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Terminal House, Victoria, S.W.I, from whom copies can be obtained on payment. The Minister of Education and my right hon. Friend commend these booklets to all concerned in training children in road safety.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Society are to be commended for these admirable booklets, particularly that for the younger children? What steps are being taken to ensure the widest possible circulation for them?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that the Royal Society will be glad to have that commendation, which I will bring to their notice. We hope that education authorities will take large quantities of these booklets—I think a special rate is quoted for quantities—for use in school instruction.

Professor Savory: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that some children seem to be afflicted with suicidal mania—a desire to throw themselves under a car? Is this not a case for the medical officer of schools to take in hand?

Mr. Callaghan: I should have thought that that was part of the natural ebullience of youth, which sometimes communicates itself to some older people.

By-Pass Road, Tadcaster

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport whether a decision has yet been reached with regard to the precise route of the projected Tadcaster by-pass road.

Mr. Barnes: This route is being surveyed but the precise line has not yet been fixed.

Colonel Ropner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the line will be fixed? A great deal of other planning is waiting for his decision in this matter.

Mr. Barnes: The divisional road engineer is in contact with the county council. I understand there is at the moment a question of one of the schools affecting the line.

Colonel Ropner: We know all that. Will the Minister say when a decision is likely to be reached?

Mr. Barnes: When the inquiries are finished.

Durham County Council (Appointment)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the representations made to him by the deputation from Durham County Council requesting him to reconsider his refusal to approve the appointment of either the present deputy county surveyor or one of the divisional surveyors as county surveyor; and whether he will now state his final decision and indicate on what grounds it is based.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, and I hope to convey my decision to the council within the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR HORNS (ILLEGAL SOUNDING)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is still a punishable offence to sound a motor horn after 11 p.m.; and if there were any prosecutions during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1947.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): It is an offence to sound a motor horn in a "built-up" area between 11.30 p.m. and and 7 a.m. I regret that the figures asked for in the second part of the Question are not available.

Mr. Collins: Can my hon. Friend say whether this is a rule which is now not observed and would he look into the matter to see if this unnecessary regulation can be brought to an end?

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has no evidence that this regulation is different from any other from the point of view of enforcement. I should not be prepared to admit that it is an unnecessary regulation.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most admirable regulation and that the hours of the ban might well be extended in the interests of public safety?

Mr. Drayson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether two hoots are permitted?

Mr. Younger: In reply to the first of those supplementary questions, I think it is an admirable regulation. Of course, it dates from long before the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTED CANNED SOUPS

Mr. Molson: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, in view of the scarcity of dollar exchange, canned soups manufactured in Baltimore are being imported for sale in this country at 1s. 4½d. per 16 oz. can, when the normal price for British-produced soups is 10½d.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): These imports, which are very small indeed, are made by private traders under the token import scheme. There is no statutory price control for tinned soups.

CIVIL SERVICE (COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS)

The Prime Minister: I desire to make a statement in regard to certain matters of employment in the Civil Service.
In answers to Questions on the subject of the transfer or dismissal of certain Government servants, I have said that there are certain duties of such secrecy that the State is not justified in employing in connection with them anyone whose reliability is in doubt.
Experience, both in this country and elsewhere, has shown that membership of, and other forms of continuing association with, the Communist Party may involve the acceptance by the individual of a loyalty, which in certain circumstances can be inimical to the State.

Mr. Gallacher: "So raise the scarlet banner high. …"

The Prime Minister: It is not suggested that in matters affecting the security of the State all those who adhere to the Communist Party would allow themselves thus to forget their primary loyalty to the State. But there is no way of distinguishing such people from those who, if opportunity offered, would be prepared to endanger the security of the State in the interests of another Power. The Government have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only prudent course to adopt is to ensure that no one who is known to be a member of the Communist Party, or to be associated with it in such a way as to raise legitimate doubts about his or her reliability, is employed in connection with work, the nature of which is vital to the security of the State.
The same rule will govern the employment of those who are known to be actively associated with Fascist organisations.
I should emphasise that this action is being taken solely on security grounds. The State is not concerned with the political views, as such, of its servants, and as far as possible alternative employment on the wide range of non-secret Government work will be found for those who are deemed for the reason indicated to be unsuitable for secret work. It may, however, happen that it is impossible to find suitable employment elsewhere in the Civil Service for individuals with specialist qualifications and in such cases there may be no alternative to refusal of employment or dismissal.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Can. the Prime Minister give any estimate of the numbers of people likely to be covered by this extremely wise precaution?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman—whom we are all very pleased to see back again in the House—I am afraid I could not give any particular estimate at the present moment.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the General Election was fought on the basis that the Tories were the enemies of the working class? [Laughter.] Oh, yes. Are we now faced with the fact that the Prime Minister is grovelling to the Tories and big dollar boys of America? Further, will the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) be taken into the Government as a resurrected Titus Oates?

The Prime Minister: In answer to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I do not agree with any of his statements, but I am well aware that we have to deal very carefully with the Communist Party. I have not forgotten their attitude in 1939, 1940 and 1941.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: While the country will welcome the statement the Prime Minister has just made, may I ask him for an assurance that the steps he is taking will be extended to such matters as the telephone service and key telephone exchanges?

The Prime Minister: It will have to extend everywhere where important secret matters have to be covered.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that, reluctant as the public service have always been to contemplate discrimination on political grounds, the vast volume of opinion in the public service recognises that there is a distinction to be drawn between those—to whatever party they belong—who accept the democratic premises of the state in which we live, and those who consciously and deliberately reject those premises, and will regard what the Prime Minister has said as appropriate to the present circumstances? Is he aware that this treatment is very much more restrained and gentle than that applied by Communist Governments in Eastern Europe—the most recent instance of which is Czechoslovakia—whose civil servants are not members of the Communist Party and have been purged on a wholesale scale?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the statement in the first part of the hon. Members' supplementary question, and also with the second part.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the Prime Minister's beginning of a purge of Communists, is there any reason why he should not go on to Jews and Socialists?

The Prime Minister: Yes, every reason, because Jews and Socialists have a loyalty to this country. That is not so with many Communists, and some fellow travellers.

Hon Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gallacher: Listen to the lions' roar.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending this very useful purge to those members of the Services who are engaged in dealing with secret processes?

The Prime Minister: The general principle covers all those in the service of the State where secrecy is involved.

Mr. Bing: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that when anyone's reliability is in doubt that person will be told the charge made against him, and given an opportunity to answer it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly. It is the invariable practice that where a person is charged he is given an opportunity to reply.

Sir W. Smithers: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the statement he has made next time there is a demand for a Secret Session of this House?

Mr. Bramall: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the administration of these regulations is in the hands of people capable of distinguishing between Socialists and Communists?

The Prime Minister: I do not think any intelligent person has any difficulty.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: In view of the fact that during the war many loyal members of the British Labour Party, some of whom are now Members of His Majesty's Government, were victimised by Secret Service agents, will the last supplementary question be taken very seriously indeed?

Major Beamish: In view of the very great importance of this question, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a very good case could be made out for the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate the activities of the Communist Party, and cover organisations? In the light of the statement which he has just made, and of the general post that is to take place, may I ask which party the Communist sympathisers in the Socialist Party will be expected to join?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any need for a Royal Commission.

Major Beamish: What about the second part of my question?

Mr. Cobb: Will my right hon. Friend say who is going to judge in this? Would


it not be preferable for a small tribunal, with some outside representation on it, to do the job, to make sure that the thing is as fair as it possibly can be?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think experienced persons can make this judgment. Ministers must take responsibility for their Departments for any matters raised.

Mr. Cocks: Regarding the fighting Services, will my right hon. Friend remember that Roman Catholics defeated the Spanish Armada, sent against us by the Pope? Will he also remember that reports from M.I.5 are not always reliable?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of the security considerations he mentioned will also apply to certain bodies not directly controlled by His Majesty's Government, such as the B.B.C., and will he consider very carefully whether what he has said in regard to the Civil Service should not also apply to the B.B.C.?

The Prime Minister: That is obviously the responsibility of the Governors of the B.B.C. We are dealing with those in the service of the State.

Mr. Piratin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, though he claims that this statement is made on the grounds of security, it will be recognised in the country by the workingclass as a measure of political discrimination against the Communist Party, to blacken the name of the Communist Party in the eyes of all progressive forces in this country? In view of the importance of this statement, will the Prime Minister consider giving a day,

or some suitable time, for a Debate on the matter on the Floor of the House?

The Prime Minister: The latter part of that supplementary question should be put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As regards the first part, I think the hon. Member is quite mistaken. I think the workers of the country are very well aware now, from events abroad and events here, of what the Communist Party stand for.

Sir Ian Fraser: In applying the restriction in the Government service, and as far as it affects the B.B.C. and the country generally, will the right hon. Gentleman advise that it shall be kept within the very narrow limits related strictly to security? Otherwise, does he not think that it is an unaccustomed and difficult course on which he may be embarking?

Mr. Piratin: And undemocratic.

The Prime Minister: I think I made it abundantly clear in my statement that this was restricted to very narrow limits where security matters were of importance.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he is himself satisfied of the loyalty of the overwhelming majority of the Civil Service of this country?

Major Beamish: And of his own party.

The Prime Minister: Certainly, I think Communists everywhere are in a very small minority, and in the Civil Service likewise.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

James Richard Edwards Harden, Esquire, for the County of Armagh.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'colck."—[The Prime Minister.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).

The House divided Ayes, 193; Noes, 90.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[3.44 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Peart, T. F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Perrins, W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Piratin, P.


Alpass, J. H.
Gunter, R J.
Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Guy, W. H.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Ayles, W H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pritt, D. N.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Randall, H. E.


Balfour, A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Ranger, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Barton, C
Harrison, J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Battley, J. R
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Robens, A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Belcher, J. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Benson, G.
Hobson, C R.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Berry, H.
Holman, P.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Beswick, F.
House, G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Bing, G. H C.
Hoy, J.
Sargood, R.


Binns, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Bottomley, A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Sharp, Granville


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bramall, E. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shurmer, P


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Janner, B.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Brown, George (Belper)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Jones, D T. (Hartlepool)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Burke, W. A.
Key, C. W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Kinley, J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Byers, Frank
Leonard, W.
Snow, J. W.


Callaghan, James
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sparks, J. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Lipson, D. L.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Champion, A. J
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Chetwynd, G. R
McAdam, W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Cluse, W. S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Symonds, A. L.


Cobb, F. A.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
Mack, J. D.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Coldrick, W
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Collindridge, F.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Collins, V. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Comyns, Dr. L
McLeavy, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Corlett, Dr. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tolley, L.


Crawley, A.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Usborne, Henry


Daines, P.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Viant, S. P


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mayhew, C. P.
Walkden, E.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Walker, G. H.


Dodds, N. N.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Millington, Wing-Comdr, E. R
Warbey, W. N.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Moody, A. S.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Dumpleton, C W.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Edelman, M.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)



Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Moyle, A.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B.


Edwards, W J (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Wise, Major F. J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
O'Brien, T.
Wyatt, W.


Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.)
Paget, R. T.
Yates, V. F.


Foot, M M.
Parker, J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Forman, J. C.
Parkin, B. T.



Gallacher, W.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Mr. Simmons and


Gibson, C. W.
Pearson, A.
Mr. Wilkins.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Pickthorn, K.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Hope, Lord J.
Ramsay, Maj. S


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bossom, A. C.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col, W. H.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bower, N.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robinson, Roland


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. L


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Savory, Prof. D. L


Bullock, Capt. M.
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carson, E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Channon, H.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère, R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drayson, G. B.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Drewe, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thorp, Brigadier, R. A F


Erroll, F. J
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.



Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Harden, J. R. E.
Odey, G. W.
Mr. Studholme and




Major Conant.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1948–49— REPORT [8th March]

VOTE A. NUMBERS

Resolution reported:
That 167,300 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines borne en the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service together with 1,592 Royal Marine Police borne on the books at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: After the lively Debate we had last week, there are few points left for me to deal with. I shall make only a few criticisms of these Estimates, though I intend to offer some invitations to the Parliamentary Secretary which I hope he will accept. First, as the hon. Gentleman gave only about 40 seconds of his time last Monday to naval aviation, I hope that he will be more informative when dealing with this Vote today. The hon. Gentleman stated that the proportion of men employed in the Air Arm was approximately between a quarter and a third. Am I right?

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Yes.

Mr. Bracken: One need not be a Fellow of the Royal Society to calculate, therefore, that there are about 42,000 employed. There are at present, I understand, two carriers in full commission and two more in the Portland Squadron. Therefore, the great majority of these 42,000 must be shore based. This is, indeed, a most unsatisfactory position. I do not believe that either the Minister of Defence, the First Lord, the Financial Secretary or the Civil Lord can like it very much. They must feel that there are too many beached mariners or grounded

airmen. I know that in the present redispositions, this position can be defended. Nevertheless, I imagine that it gives no comfort to anyone connected with the Admiralty.
There is another point upon which I should like to be enlightened. The Minister of Defence gave some surprising figures of the complement required today to man a ship. As the right hon. Gentleman is a great naval expert, he might be able to give me an answer to some amateurish questions which occurred to me after I read his speech. For instance, when speaking last week, he put the complement of the "Duke of York" at 1,760. "Brassey's Naval Annual" put the war complement at only 1,500. One might expect that in peace-time the complement should be less than that. I should very much like the Parliamentary Secretary to have a consultation with the Minister of Defence and explain to us the reason for this difference in figures. I suppose it is right to say that in peace-time there is no need to man every gun and every piece of radar equipment on the scale necessary to keep them fully manned for 24 hours a day as in wartime. I am not criticising this manning policy, but I was interested by the figures given by the Minister of Defence. The invaluable "Brassey" unfortunately gives no particulars about the complements of aircraft carriers, so we cannot make the same sort of comparison as that which I have just been trying to make. However, is it really necessary that an aircraft carrier in peacetime should have a complement of 1,400? I am not attacking the manning of these carriers but, as I told the Parliamentary Secretary, I am inviting him to give an explanation. These are comparatively small uncontroversial points.
Now I want to touch on a much more important point which certainly is controversial. I refer to the vast number of civilians employed by the Admiralty. A few weeks ago the hon. Gentleman gave some figures of the civil servants employed by the Admiralty, excluding those employed by the dockyards at home and overseas. These figures are quite startling. On 1st January, 1939, there were 7,650 non-industrial employees. On 1st January, 1948, there were 25,650. The figures for industrial workers show that 22,850 were employed on 1st April, 1939, and 57,100 were employed on 1st Janu-


ary, 1948. That of course excludes the dockyard employees. These figures require a lot of explanation. I hope that we shall obtain that explanation from the Civil Lord or the Parliamentary Secretary. The Civil Lord, in answer to a Question asked some time in February, told us that the number employed within the Admiralty on 1st January, 1938, was 4,950, compared with 8,700 on 1st January, 1948. All I can say is that the holy of holies is thoroughly well manned. He also told us that there were no fewer than 5,350 persons employed by the Admiralty at Bath.
The dockyards also show an immense increase in the number of employees. We had a partial explanation of that increase last week when the Parliamentary Secretary told us that dockyard employees were now being used for the purpose of wiring houses on building estates in and around Portsmouth or Plymouth. I should not have thought that was the best possible work for dockyard employees. It certainly does not justify the staggering increase in their number. The Minister of Defence has interjected that they are principally electricians. I have no doubt that they are: otherwise, I do not suppose that they would have been engaged in wiring houses.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I did not interject.

Mr. Bracken: The Government are constantly complaining or even wailing about the shortage of manpower. The policy of the Admiralty today seems to be to deflate the Navy and to inflate the Civil Service. I cannot believe that there is enough work to justify the immense increase in the civilian staff employed by the Admiralty. I hope that in the present calm and peaceful atmosphere of this House we shall have a thoroughly good and lengthy explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary and, later on, from the Civil Lord. We have plenty of time. We are most dutiful public servants. We look forward to trying to obtain some explanation of these astonishing figures, because they show a wanton waste in manpower. In my view, they should be reduced forthwith. I hope that the Minister of Defence will consider the question of reduction. It is not a good thing to employ superfluous persons either in the Admiralty or in the dockyards. It is

hard enough in peace-time to get real support for the sums of money that must be spent on the Royal Navy. Any form of wastage should be cut out.
No one is a friend to the Royal Navy who does not criticise wastages of manpower at the present time. I was glad to see the other day that the Parliamentary Secretary said that there would not be any extensive axing of officers as there was after the last war. That is an entirely wise policy, but I do think there could be an axing of civil servants. There are far too many civilians employed by the Admiralty, and I do not think that any person, be he the greatest of mathematicians, doubly abler than Einstein, could justify the vast increase in the civilian employees of the Admiralty.
Now I want to touch upon another point. It would be wrong to say that it is non-controversial, because when aesthetic questions are raised in this House they generally lead to violent Debates. I understand that, on other Estimates, there will be a good deal of discussion about the land and other property retained by the various Service Departments since the war. I think I may begin with a generalisation. Before and during the war, the Service Departments showed a wonderful predeliction for establishing themselves in the most desirable parts of the countryside. It is quite astonishing, when one considers the many properties which were requisitioned by the Service Departments, to find that the gentleman employed should have shown such unerring judgment in seizing upon what are called the beauty spots of the country. No one can doubt that the Admiralty requisitioners, consciously or unconsciously, were sensitive to beauty. I regret to say that some of the mariners who followed in the path of the requisitioners were without much aesthetic quality, because the condition of the buildings and land which they occupied can only be described as disgraceful.
Great injury was done to fine buildings and much beautiful countryside by the Service Departments. The Royal Navy certainly was not the worst, though it must bear its share of responsibility. Their Lordships should be praised for giving up so much of the property they requisitioned in war-time. I think that the Admiralty have a better record than the other Service Departments in giving up


land which had to be taken over for the purpose of the defence of Britain in wartime, and, while I give that praise to the Admiralty—it is not high praise to say that they were better than the others, but it is some praise—I must say that the Admiralty deserves the sharpest censure for their firm grasp on Bath.
It is one of the most beautiful of all our towns. It is probably the greatest triumph of Georgian architecture in Britain, and many good judges have said that it is one of the most beautiful towns in the world. I should not be surprised if, after all the bombing activities over Europe, that claim can now be made with greater strength. For Bath is certainly a noble city and a great attraction to foreign tourists. The Government has no right to use Bath as a sort of subsidiary outpost of the Admiralty. I do not know what the outpost is used for, but I suppose files are kept there, and various departments which cannot find a home in London—though the Admiralty still holds on to Queen Anne's Mansions—are relegated to Bath. I should have thought that that would be a very great inconvenience from the point of view of administration in the Admiralty, but, whether it is convenient or inconvenient, I think the Admiralty should make up their minds to depart from Bath.
What on earth has the Admiralty got to do with Bath? I have never heard that the city had any connection with sea power, though a notorious female beloved of Lord Nelson did live there for a space of time. That clearly does not justify the Admiralty in occupying so much space in Bath. I must say to the Minister of Defence that a spa is really no substitute for the deep waters, and that he ought to move his civil servants nearer to the sea. If, for instance, as I have heard suggested occasionally, the Admiralty find a great difficulty in knowing what to do with Rosyth, I suggest that it would be a compliment to Scotland and a very great advantage to Bath if the right hon. Gentleman would move some of his staff from Bath to Rosyth, or move them to any place he likes. I should think he might move some of them back to London.
According to Government experts, our tourist traffic could be worth £100 million a year. I think that estimate has been amended in a subsequent White Paper, and I am unable to access with

accuracy Britain's capacity as a tourist centre. But this I do know. So long as the Admiralty insist on keeping more than 5,000 civil servants in Bath, there will be a sharp reduction in the possibilities of earning revenue from tourists. Surely, somebody ought to co-ordinate the policies of Government Departments. We are told that tourism is one of the greatest of our invisible exports, and I have read speeches on this subject by numerous Ministers, including the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. They all say that great sums can be earned by attracting people to Britain to see the great historic cathedral cities of Britain and Scotland's glories, more particularly, Edinburgh. Here, let me remind the Parliamentary Secretary that Edinburgh has recently staged quite successfully a wonderful entertainment whereby it can claim to be a sort of postwar Salzburg. I think that claim has been pretty well established. Bath, too, could arrange many festivals; in fact, an important one is being arranged in the course of this year, but accommodation in Bath is very limited.
Why do 5,000 civil servants still live in Bath? I hope the Government will take immediate steps to clear these civil servants out of Bath, though it is not for me to say where they should go. It is highly desirable, from the point of view of Britain, that we should make something more of Bath. I hold the view that tourism could be greatly developed in Britain, and, of all the cities in Britain that would help in developing the tourist trade, Bath is undoubtedly the best. I do not think there is any party point between us this afternoon. I feel that the Admiralty should consider the hardships which they are inflicting upon Bath by holding on to it for quite unnecessary purposes. They should give up that city to its proper use and find some other place for their 5,000 civil servants.
That is all I have to say, except to raise one very small point. I am really looking for reassurance here, because I think there must be a mistake in these Estimates. In Vote 11 (A), travelling expenses are listed amounting to £3,825,000, compared with £812,000 in 1939. This figure is between four and five times as large as that expended upon travelling expenses before the war and I think it needs a word of explanation. I wonder


whether there is some misprint in the Estimate; if not it will take a powerful explanation to convince me that these travelling expenses are justified.
Let me make a final appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence and the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope they will give us an assurance this afternoon that they will try to depart from Bath as soon as possible. It was an honour for Bath to have the Navy there in wartime but in peacetime there is no justification in keeping so much space in towns which could play a great part in the revival of the tourist industry in Britain. I hope therefore to get an assurance from the Ministers concerned that they will clear out as soon as possible.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Mallalieu: The eloquent plea on behalf of Bath to which we have just listened, from the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), has, in my view, something to be said for it, but not quite everything which the right hon. Gentleman said. I do not think it matters that there has been no historical association between the Navy and Bath—that is true. I do not think there has been any historical association between the right hon. Gentleman and Bournemouth, but he still makes them a very admirable representative.

Mr. Bracken: If I could interrupt the hon. Member. Alas, I wish Bournemouth had what I might call the architectural advantages of Bath.

Mr. Mallalieu: So do I. This is the point I want to put. There is a suggestion that the beauty spots of England, such as Bath, should be reserved for the tourist traffic. I would say, personally, that there is no reason at all why civil servants or seamen should not have the advantage of doing their work in these beauty spots; I do not think there is a likelihood of harm to them. One of the beauties of a place is its architectural beauty, and another is its intellectual life. From the little I know about Bath and the sort of people who live there, I do not think the intellectual life of that city will be reduced by having an influx of highly cultured civil servants and highly cultured seamen from time to time. The new blood thus coming into the life of that town will, I feel, increase its attractiveness.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member is libelling Bath. Does he not know that a great part of the "Decline and Fall" was written in Bath, and that a great deal of Mr. Burke's writings were also done in Bath? Bath has always been a home of authors.

Mr. Mallalieu: I knew that. I also knew that both those works were written some time ago, and we are discussing the intellectual standing of Bath at the present time, which I would say is no higher and no lower than that of Cheltenham, where I believe an increase would result from an influx of new life. The serious point, as I understand it, is the question of the dispersal of Admiralty establishments all over the country. To concentrate the resources of the Admiralty in London or the resources of the Navy in three main depots would be a seriously harmful and dangerous thing to do in the light of the sort of war we might expect in the future. I would ask the Admiralty to go slow on any idea of retrieving their outposts and bringing them back into the centre, and rather to concentrate on the idea of building up a machine which can work efficiently when dispersed.
Especially, I would press again the question of the Royal Naval Barracks which I have raised previously in the House, but I cannot get any sort of reference to it in the winding up speeches of Ministers replying to the Debate. I know that was not the fault of the Civil Lord on this occasion, as he was very pressed for time. It is a very serious point to be considered. These Naval Depots are far too large from the point of view of maintaining discipline and the point of view of security, and I want the Admiralty, now they have the chance, to prepare new plans in terms of having many more depots of a much smaller type—whether at Rosyth, or elsewhere dispersed about the country.
There is one further thing I want to raise this time on the matter of Vote V— Educational Services—and I want to use the words "Educational Services" in the widest sense to include ordinary instruction as well. A good deal of money is being voted in these Estimates for educational purposes. There is a good deal about salaries and so on, and a certain amount about equipment, but it seems to me to be not very much use providing the Navy with first-class instructors and


good apparatus if we cannot also provide them with proper classrooms in which to do their work. The classrooms in the Navy, such as I saw them, were quite frankly disgraceful. The main instructional buildings in Portsmouth Royal Naval Barracks were known as seamanship huts. They were of the temporary type, put up about 1898 I imagine, and they will still be temporary in another 100 years' time unless we do something about them.
They were very small; each classroom could comfortably hold 12, but when I saw them unfortunately they held normally a class of 30 at least. There were the thinnest of partitions, so one instructor was continually being interrupted in his lessons by the voice of the instructor in the next door compartment. He was not only interrupted by the other instructors; just along the passage was the cobbler's and he could hear the cobbler smacking away all that forenoon while he was trying to teach the men the intricacies of bends and hitches and the rest of it. Moreover, and almost worse than that, the parade ground was immediately outside and squads marched up and down doing squad drill under a G.I. Anybody knows that a G.I. does not tend to give his orders sotto voce—an air-raid siren is, by comparison, a lullaby. It is impossible for instructors to give of their best under such conditions.
So far as I could judge, the Navy has made tremendous advances during wartime in the method of giving instruction. The old way of instructing in the Navy used to be of someone standing up in front of the squad: "At the order One, Number One, and Number One only, springing to attention and moving at the double, will take up his position at the right of gun, facing the breach." That was tremendously changed during the war. The idea of instructional technique was developed very widely, but it will all come to nothing—all these new ideas—unless the instructors are given a chance to teach properly. I want to ask the Financial Secretary, when he deals with the depots, to tell us that the Admiralty really are concerned with providing not only first-class instructors, not only first-class apparatus, but also the environment of first-class classrooms, without which the others are not very much use.

4.18 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I wish to raise the question of the payment of 25 per cent. by the Admiralty to those officers who joined the emergency list prior to 31st October, 1930, and on being called up were promoted to the rank of commander or captain. I raised the question with the Admiralty with regard to the case of a particular officer who was on the emergency list before 31st October, 1930, who was promoted to the rank of acting captain and to whom the Admiralty refused to pay the bonus of 25 per cent. in addition to the full pay of the rank to which he was entitled according to the contract made by the Admiralty with those officers.
I do not raise this matter merely on account of this one officer, but as a matter of principle that the Admiralty should fulfil their obligation under a contract which they entered into with officers joining this emergency list. In 1927 the regulations covering this 25 per cent. bonus were altered and the bonus was then discontinued, but it was discovered by the Admiralty when the present Minister of Defence was First Lord of the Admiralty; I brought to his notice that the officers who had joined prior to that had not been informed of the change in the regulations in 1937. The right hon. Gentleman very rightly saw the justice of that claim, and the 25 per cent. bonus was paid to those officers. The Admiralty did justice in that matter, and I am very grateful for the action taken by the Minister of Defence in that respect.
The regulations under which officers joined the Emergency List were stated in the July Navy List. I must go back on this question, because it is very important. The July, 1911, Navy List said:
(1) When called up for active service, officers on this list will receive the full pay of their rank, and
(2) On discharge, after being called up for active service, officers will be granted a bonus of 25 per cent. on full pay (exclusive of allowances) earned during their employment.
Then, in April, 1916, the following regulations were published:
Emergency officers re-employed in time of war may be promoted irrespective of the regulation governing the promotion of officers on the active list.
In April, 1918, a further publication on regulations took place, which said:


If called up on active service, officers on this list, if promoted subsequently to being placed on the emergency list, receive the rate of full pay of the higher rank.
It went on to say:
They will also be granted a bonus of 25 per cent. on full pay (exclusive of allowances) earned during their employment.
Those are very important statements for the Admiralty to make. It is quite clear from those two regulations that the Admiralty recognised that these emergency officers might be promoted to the rank of commander or captain, and that they also clearly laid down that, if they were, they would receive the full pay of such rank, and, in addition, a 25 per cent. bonus. There is no getting away from that; those were the regulations which they issued.
The point at issue is that the Admiralty have refused to carry out the regulations which they laid down. The particular officer, whose case I brought to the notice of the First Lord, was refused the 25 per cent. bonus on promotion to acting captain. The plea on which the Admiralty have rested their refusal to pay the bonus, as stated to me in a letter from the Financial Secretary which I have here, is as follows:
That such officers had no prescriptive right or claim to such promotion.
The Financial Secretary went on to say in his letter:
In other words, as the original contract with these officers did not bind the Admiralty to promote them to either the rank of commander or captain, they are regarded as coming on to new contracts when promoted to one of these ranks after being called up.
The letter then goes on:
The date of such promotion being an appropriate moment to vary their conditions of service, i.e., to cease payment of the bonus on full pay.
In view of the regulations which I have quoted, I can only say that that is a very ingenious excuse on the part of the Admiralty to get out of paying these officers the 25 per cent. bonus. In fact, I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, it is a most dishonest thing to do. The Admiralty, by their own regulations, are bound to pay this 25 per cent., but, on the plea that they are not bound to promote these officers, they refuse to do so. Everybody in the Service knows quite well—and I am sure the Financial Secretary now knows it—that

the Admiralty are not bound to promote any officer, either on the active list or any other list to the rank of commander or captain, and that such promotion is entirely a matter of selection. That, therefore, has nothing to do with it, and is not material to this question. In any case, even if it was, such a reason would not absolve the Admiralty from carrying out their obligations under the regulations which they themselves issued with regard to the payment of this 25 per cent. bonus in April, 1918, and which I have quoted.
I wish to mention one other thing which is also of some importance. It is the fact that, prior to May, 1927, when the bonus was done away with, the regulations provided that emergency officers called up for service would receive the full pay of their rank plus a bonus of 25 per cent. in lieu—and this is very important—of any pension to which their further service might entitle them. Therefore, the Admiralty quite obviously recognised, when they issued these regulations, that other officers would receive an increment to their pension for their additional service during war-time and that, in the case of those officers on the emergency list called up, instead of an addition of pension, which they were not receiving, they would receive this 25 per cent. bonus. To withdraw this bonus from those officers is comparable to withholding an increased pension from officers on the active list for the additional service they gave during the war. It is quite improper on the part of the Admiralty to refuse either a pension or to take away the bonus from an officer because he has been promoted.
Therefore, because it is a matter of principle that the Admiralty should fulfil the obligations which they undertook to these officers, I ask them to reconsider the matter. I have already referred to the present Minister of Defence, and how he acted when his attention was drawn to a case of injustice—he put the matter right; the Admiralty did the right thing. I now ask that the Admiralty may do the same in this instance. It creates a feeling of injustice and does immense harm to ask officers to serve under certain conditions and then for the Admiralty not to fulfil their obligations, as is happening in this particular case. I ask the Admiralty not only to reconsider this one case, but also the case of any other officer in the same position. As I have said, it is a matter of principle. I am sure there are


few officers involved in this, and that it would not cost very much, although that is not the point. It is, as I repeat, a question of principle, and, in this case, I ask the Admiralty to do justice to these officers, and to pay them their 25 per cent. bonus.

4.29 p.m.

Commander Maitland: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) has raised a very important matter, of which many of us became aware as we were leaving the Navy after the war. I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give serious consideration to the plea which has been made to him. If he feels that he cannot give a favourable reply today, I sincerely hope he will consider the matter very carefully and not make any sudden judgment about it. Many officers have been affected by this problem. As for the civil establishments which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), it is of no use for the Parliamentary Secretary, should he try to do so, to explain to the House that the Navy are in camp like a nautical host of Midian about Bath. It is true that this is where they work, but it is where they have to live which matters. It is their accommodation that is taking up so much room at the present time.
There are several questions to which I should like an answer. The first is about warrant officers, of whom the Parliamentary Secretary spoke in his speech last Monday. I have an enormous admiration for warrant officers. When I was a very junior officer they guided my footsteps into the right ways—I hope—and when I became a little more senior they acted as righthand men to me in every sense of the word. They are of the finest stuff the Navy has. I am not very often in agreement, I am afraid, with the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey), but I was very much in agreement with his comment the other day, in regard to the report on warrant officers, that the mountain had laboured and brought forth a mouse. It is a very poor mouse, too, in my opinion. All that is achieved is to give warrant officers wardroom messing. I know that there are warrant officers who appreciate very much that wardroom

status. I think it is a very good thing for them to have. The House should realise, however, that in the vast majority of the ships in the Navy warrant officers have had that status for a very long time. Now it is to be extended to them in big ships as well and, presumably, in barracks. It is a very good thing. I must tell the House, however, that I do not think that all warrant officers without exception will appreciate it as much as the Parliamentary Secretary expects. For one thing, it will involve them in certain extra expenses which may make difficulties for them. I do not think, therefore, that this is a very big concession, although I am glad it has been made.
The position of warrant officers has changed very considerably during recent years. It is not so very long ago when a man who reached the rank of warrant officer had reached the peak of his ambition. Now we wish to offer incentives to all men on the lower deck to qualify for gradual and steady promotion, and yet the rank of warrant officer, which was once a target to achieve, is now becoming—indeed, it has become—a sort of dead end whence men can go no farther. I should like to see a system in the Navy whereby every officer and man can always look forward, no matter how small the hope, to further promotion. Therefore, I should like to see the status of the warrant officer brought more into the steady stream of promotion as it is in the Navy today. No officer or man should ever find himself in a position in which the door to higher promotion is for ever closed. I do not believe in zones, or in passing out of zones. They do not do the Navy any good. I am speaking without rancour because this sort of misfortune did not happen to me.
At present when a man has passed a certain age and can no longer hope to get promotion it is obvious that he will not have the incentive that he had before. I should like to see a system of promotion in which incentive always remains. Particularly would I like to see it in the case of chief petty officers. Chief petty officers, particularly after a certain age, at present have no hope of further promotion. All of us know the magnificent work done by acting warrant officers during the war. Men who were chief petty officers before the war were called in the time of their country's need to serve as warrant officers,


and very magnificently did they do their duty. Indeed, I think they did their duty in their higher rank in a way that far exceeded even the hopes and expectations of the Admiralty. I see no reason why chief petty officers, after attaining a certain age, if they happen to do particularly well, should not have the opportunity of promotion. The door should be kept open a little. Obviously, it is very difficult to keep it wide open to men beyond a certain age, but it should always be kept open a little, despite age.
Now I come to the question of the repairs of barracks, hospitals and the like. When considering Navy Estimates in the past we have always had the hope that we should have new barracks, new hospitals, new classrooms, and so on. Now we have to face the fact that we shall not have new buildings for a very long time to come. Therefore, we must patch up and improve those we have, wasteful though that would be could we expect new buildings soon. I hope that the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary will assure us about this matter when he comes to reply to the Debate. I recently had to spend some time in the vicinity of the naval hospital at Stonehouse. I should like to say at once that I make no manner of criticism of the staff of that hospital. From my own personal observation I can say that I have never seen more devoted service, or better work, than the staff of that hospital puts in. They are perfectly magnificent. But they are labouring under very serious difficulties. This is a hospital which, to all intents and purposes, is condemned.
A new hospital is proposed—possibly, rather vaguely; but it is generally understood that there will be a new hospital at Plymouth for naval ratings. Because that has been understood, nothing has been done about the existing hospital. It is common sense that if we are to build a new hospital we do not want to patch up an old one which is falling to pieces. The doubt and delay in this case have gone on too long, however. There is no doubt now that it will be many years before we have a new hospital. Therefore, though I should be the last person to advocate patching up as a policy, I think we have to do something about that hospital to make it more comfortable for the sick men and the staff who are in there now. There are lots of simple

things which can be done at not very great expense, perhaps not very tidily, but which would make a big difference. We should face the realities and examine our hospitals and barracks and try to make them a little more comfortable, even considered on a temporary basis, because that temporary basis may last for a very long time indeed.
In the Defence White Paper I noticed certain duties common to all Services, such as the chaplaincy and the medical department; committees are being set up to try to co-ordinate these duties between the three Services. I wonder whether we could be told exactly what is happening as far as the Navy is concerned. Is there any question of an alteration in the pay and conditions of these services? Is there any question of a reduction in their complement? Will the officers or men so affected by that White Paper consider that something is being held over their heads, or can they look forward, as should every officer and man in the Navy, with confidence to the promises which have been given that there will be no axing. I hope we may have a clear reply to that.
I will refer to one small matter which I omitted to mention at the beginning of my speech, namely, civil establishments. Is the Parliamentary Secretary happy that the civil establishments are properly balanced? There are undoubtedly shortages in some of them. For example, there is a shortage, which is spreading throughout the Admiralty, in the various draughtsmen branches. Such shortages often mean an increase in other manpower in order to try to produce the same efficiency in a more laborious way. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will deal also with that aspect.

4.43 p.m.

Commander Pursey: I had not intended to speak in this Debate, but as I am the only Member in the House who has served as a warrant officer and as the subject has been raised it behoves me to say something for the warrant officers, about whom I have spoken previously.

Commander Maitland: So have I.

Commander Pursey: Wait for it. I am prepared to pay a tribute. I was very glad to hear what the hon. and gallant


Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) said about warrant officers and the support he got from his colleagues on that side of the House. The three points of the Noble Committee's Report were: title, standing and messing. The hon. and gallant Member said that he was doubtful about the feelings of some warrant officers in regard to messing in the wardroom. I can say emphatically that by far the great majority want to be there, because of the injustices that they suffered during the war when messing with the other Services, as prisoners of war, or in other similar circumstances, and they were down-graded and messed not with the officers, but with the petty officers. The answer to the hon. and gallant Member's contention in regard to expenses, is to cut down the expenses and bring them within the limit of a warrant officer's pay.
Since I made brief reference to the titles last Monday I have heard that last week at Portsmouth there was a general meeting of warrant officers—called presumably by the Commander-in-Chief—to discuss the question of titles. I understand that before they started consideration of a new title two proposed titles were ruled out as not being open to consideration, the very titles they wished to consider, namely, those of sub-lieutenant and lieutenant. The suggestion has been put forward that the new titles should be mate and acting mate. For 20 years from 1912 there was a mate scheme, and I was a mate myself; and it took 20 years to get this distinctive title abolished. The great disadvantage of that title is that it is the second part of a title for all sorts of ratings, such as blacksmith's mate and painter's mate and so on. I say, frankly, that the warrant officers will never accept the title "mate." They had 20 years of it, with the consequent dissatisfaction; only with great difficulty were they able to get rid of it, and there is no question of that coming back.
The title they want, and will strive after, is that of "sub-lieutenant." Now that the warrant officers are in the wardroom mess, the commissioned officers' mess, there is further ground for their being given the title of sub-lieutenant. They are wearing the same uniform; they have the same stripes; and they should have the same rank. Moreover, the difference in their qualifications and the

duties which they perform today is practically nil. For instance, a warrant officer in a small ship performs exactly the same duties as the sub-lieutenant. He takes his watch on the bridge; he does officer of the day in harbour; he messes with the other officers; and, in addition to that, by virtue of his special gunnery and torpedo qualifications, he has superior knowledge over the sub-lieutenant.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Not always.

Commander Pursey: Yes, always. Before he qualifies, a warrant officer must have qualifications in some specialist branch, so that he has technical knowledge over and above that of the sub-lieutenant. There is no doubt about it whatever.
Although there has been a difference of opinion about the title, with various suggestions put forward, the majority of warrant officers want the title of the comparable rank with which they are serving—sub-lieutenant. In order to distinguish them from other officers, it would be quite easy to give them the specialist designation of their branch, in the same way as the long-term specialist officer gets his G.T.W. and so on. What they are particularly interested in—and I did not interrupt the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle, because he was batting on my wicket, rather than bowling against me, as he usually does—is the question of further promotion. In order that it may be clear to everybody, I ask the hon. and gallant Member does he advocate that they should be promoted to commissioned rank early in their career? We ought to get that clear from him.

Commander Maitland: As the hon. and gallant Member knows, at the moment there is a scheme whereby they can go ahead. I believe that they should go ahead, that the same scheme should exist right up until their age for retirement. But there is a very definite age limit within which they are allowed to take their examinations. I maintain that that is a mistake. I do not like age limits or time limits for promotion. As I tried to explain, I do not think the door to promotion should ever be closed.

Commander Pursey: The difficulty about promoting officers from the ranks is that they are thereby saddled with an age handicap. That was the problem of the


mate scheme introduced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was First Lord in 1911. In the original mate scheme the intention was to select men early and give them a free run, but they were promoted late, with the consequence that they carried a handicap of five to 10 years in their ages, which meant that they could never take part in the promotion stakes on equal terms. I am in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member as regards the present scheme of accelerated promotion to lieutenant, skipping the commissioned rank of commissioned warrant officer. But again, they start off too late, at 25 or 26, or even up to 30 years of age, which gives them an age handicap of nine or 10 years, compared with the sub-lieutenant who gets his commission at 21. While the hon. and gallant Member is doing a good thing in advocating further promotions, these officers, owing to the undue age handicap, will be at the bottom of the list when it comes to selections for promotion to commander, captain and so on.

Commander Maitland: I agree with almost everything which the hon. and gallant Member has said. I should like to make it clear, however, that a man who gets into that position has already had an opportunity of obtaining promotion at a very much earlier age through other schemes.

Commander Pursey: I accept that from my hon. and gallant Friend. We are going a long way together in this, and I hope that in a moment or two I shall be able to carry him a little bit further with me. Looking at the matter from the point of view of both the Service and the officer concerned, he is to be made a commissioned officer at the age of 26 or later; why not make him a commissioned officer at 21, or alternatively introduce some ante-dating method whereby previous service counts for promotion, which would put him on a par with his contemporaries for promotion? The warrant officer wishes to be given commissioned rank. If a rating is worthy of being promoted to officer rank, there can be no argument against his being given a commission instead of a warrant, so that he can then go on in the full stream of promotion.
The longer we go, the less becomes the difference in education and qualifications.

In other words, the warrant officer of today, instead of being the old "salt-beef squire" of 50 years ago, who was in a different category from the pukka officer from Dartmouth, is fitted, by virtue of his technical training and education, to do all the duties of the commissioned officer. That is proved when it comes to a question of promoting a warrant officer direct to lieutenant without his having to serve as a sub-lieutenant. The only additional training which is required is a short course in navigation and signals. The only difference is that under the sub-lieutenant scheme of promotion, a man is given a commission and is then trained, whereas warrant officers have completed their training before they get their warrants.
My suggestion of a solution of all these problems is that the warrant officer should get the navigation and signals training, which he now gets as a warrant officer in the case of promotion to lieutenant, in the ordinary course of his training as a rating for promotion to warrant officer; and then, instead of being promoted to warrant rank, he should be promoted to commissioned rank. This would abolish all class distinctions. If a rating is worthy of being promoted to officer status and to enter the officers' mess, as he will do now, then he is worthy of the full status of an officer, and should be given a commission and the title of sub-lieutenant. He should then have a clear field and no favour. Ability should be the deciding factor, and he should have an opportunity to go straight through to flag rank, or to any other rank to which his ability can carry him.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On page 114 of the Estimates, I see that there is a sum of £8,372,000 specified for fuel lubricants and so on. I suggest that this is a very large sum to budget for this purpose at a time when there is so much discontent in the country about the loss of the basic fuel ration. I suggest to the Admiralty that instead of increasing this item, they should be prepared to make a substantial cut in order to help the home consumer. The Parliamentary Secretary, in reference to the future movements of the Fleet, which will mean the consumption of more fuel, said:
I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Home Fleet will proceed on a cruise this autumn to the West Indies, leaving the


United Kingdom towards the end of September and returning at the beginning of December in time for Christmas leave."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 805.]
I should like to know whether these movements will mean an additional consumption of fuel as compared with the consumption envisaged in these Estimates. I strongly protest against the Fleet going on exercises to the West Indies at this time. I do not believe it is necessary for it to carry out its exercises in American waters. If hon. Members have followed the American Press, and especially the New York Press, they will see that there has been some disapproval and criticism of the Admiralty in sending the cruisers to Belize. One of the criticisms in the "New York Times," which was presumably speaking for a moderate public opinion in America and from a pro-British point of view, was that this is an outmoded 19th century gesture. I subscribe to that view.
I do not see that we are justified at the present time in carrying out exercises of this kind in the West Indies. I believe that it is a gesture of impotent Imperialism which will be resented in South America and in North America. I should be very much relieved if these exercises could take place, not in American waters but off Northern Ireland.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the hon. Member suggesting to the House that the Caribbean Sea is American waters, and that the West Indies are in American waters?

Mr. Hughes: I suggest that the ordinary student of geography would say that the Caribbean Sea was in American waters.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does that not show complete ignorance of the facts of the case?

Mr. Hughes: I accept the correction of the hon. and gallant gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). We have to remember, however, that other people have their own ideas about the Caribbean Sea. South America does not subscribe to the doctrine that the Lord God Almighty gave the Caribbean Sea to the British Empire.

Mr. Bracken: He certainly did not give it to Colonel Peron.

Mr. Hughes: To whomsoever He gave it, I suggest that the action of the British

Government in sending the Fleet to exercise in the Caribbean Sea or in the Western Hemisphere, is a gesture, in spite of all the enthusiasm with which the announcement was greeted, which may be interpreted in a very different way by people with whom we wish to be in friendly relations. If this programme were abandoned, it would save a substantial amount of liquid fuel which is badly needed by the British consumer at the present time.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The hon. Member is apparently in complete ignorance of the enthusiasm with which the British Fleet is always welcomed in whatever waters it goes, whether it is the Caribbean Sea, American waters or any other waters.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his interruption, but all I can say is that, judging from the Press reports coming from the Western hemisphere, people out there do not share in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's enthusiasm for the British Fleet.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: What awful nonsense.

Mr. Hughes: I need hardly say that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself says in this House sometimes seems awful nonsense to me, but I tolerate it, because I believe in toleration of the rival viewpoints of different people.
I would like to reinforce the plea which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) on the Committee stage about the naval aerodrome outside Ayr. This is a sore point in the West of Scotland, where people wish to know how long the Admiralty are to hold on to this aerodrome, thereby blocking the housing and industrial development of Ayr. The Parliamentary Secretary had not time to deal with the matter then, but I hope he will consider it now. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), and everybody in this area—no matter what their political opinions may be—are all agreed that the Admiralty should give the greatest possible consideration to removing the air squadrons which are stationed at this aerodrome. People are anxious that the development of their town should not be crippled. I am sure that in this matter the hon. and gallant Member for


South Paddington will cordially endorse what I have said.

5.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Last Monday we had a battle, during which the principal ship engaged was the battleship "Churchill." That battleship has now retired from action, somewhat battered after its contact with the battleship "Alexander," and the Opposition are now dependent entirely upon the light cruiser "Bournemouth," which has displayed its usual competence and agility.
I would like to answer some of the questions that have been put to me by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken). Dealing with naval aviation, he complained that only 40 seconds had been devoted to this subject in the Estimates speech which I made to the Committee last week. I would like to remind him that naval aviation is now thoroughly integrated with the rest of the Navy. We do not have special parts of the speech to deal with destroyers or submarines, or some other part of the Navy's work; nor do we with naval aviation. I would mention, in passing, that the First Sea Lord designate was himself in naval battles in the Pacific, in which naval aviation played such a vitally important part. I was asked about the increase in civilians. There are various reasons for that increase. I can only pick out one or two at random, but I would remind the House, again, that we are spending a very large sum of money on research, much of which is carried out by civilians. We are spending, this year, £9 million, as against £700,000 prewar.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman is not going to say that the Admiralty staff in Whitehall has practically doubled merely because it has been filled up with scientists. That will not wash.

Mr. Dugdale: I gave that as one example. I take more than one kind of soap to do my washing. I will give another example. We are, and have been, engaged in the process of demobilisation which, as every Member knows, involves a large amount of office work. When an establishment is closed, and the large mass of ordinary seamen and other uniformed men are sent away, a limited number of officers have to settle up and straighten

things out. That applies to small establishments in any Service, and even more in the case of a whole Service, such as the Navy. When a great number of sailors leave the Navy, there are people who must remain behind to clear up. There is, for instance, the work of handing out civilian clothing, and looking into the question of ration arrangements. Then there is the question of derequisitioning, which requires a large staff. Fortunately, as buildings are being derequisitioned, that staff can be reduced. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that no one is more concerned that I am that this staff should be reduced. We have taken what steps we can to see that the staff is kept constantly under review and reduced whenever possible. We have effected very large reductions, and I hope we shall effect many more in future.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the installation of wiring on a housing estate as a waste of manpower. I do not consider it was a waste of manpower. I am glad that certain people in the Navy were able to instal that wiring and so help forward certain housing schemes which might otherwise not have gone ahead. The right hon. Gentleman referred to beauty spots, and complained of the condition in which certain buildings were left by naval personnel. Here, I am in a rather difficult position, because as one who served in the Army I now represent the Navy. I do not want to draw invidious comparisons, but I think I can say that the Navy did leave their buildings in tolerably good condition, perhaps not as good as some would like, but, nevertheless, in tolerably good condition.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Is the hon. Gentleman casting aspersions on the Army?

Mr. Dugdale: I was very careful to say, a few moments ago, that I was on delicate ground. I merely said that the Navy left their buildings in a tolerably good condition. I am sure that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for War and Air will be able adequately to defend themselves in relation to those for whom they are responsible. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth discussed Bath at some length. I agree that Bath is perhaps the most beautiful city in England—I think it probably is—but I do not think he would maintain that the Navy had done


any harm to the buildings in that city. I thought the right hon. Gentleman rather laboured the point about tourist traffic. The Admiralty took over about 70 buildings, of which 50 or more have already been derequisitioned. That is quite a good proportion. There are only 18 or 20 buildings now under requisition, including only four hotels. So far as I can see, eight or nine hotels have been derequisitioned and four remain. They include small hotels and big hotels. I think that on the whole that is a fairly tolerable record. I do not think that the loss of these four hotels even if permanent, which it is not, would mean that the entire tourist trade of Bath would be ruined.

Mr. Bracken: Surely, the hon. Gentleman does not assert that these four hotels contain the 5,200 Admiralty employees in Bath? The Admiralty own a lot of other buildings—boarding houses which could be used for tourist traffic, and which are now occupied by their beach mariners an8 civil servants.

Mr. Dugdale: I said that there were only four hotels and that there were approximately 20 buildings altogether left. A large number of the Admiralty staff, as I think the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned, is in hutments outside Bath and others are temporarily in these 15 or 20 buildings, but I do not think that it can be said, as the Admiralty have given up eight or nine hotels, that it is strangling the tourist traffic of Bath. So far as the people of Bath are concerned, I think that the presence of Admiralty officials there may have been of some benefit to their trade. They may not bring in dollars, but they certainly bring in pounds.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of expenditure on travel. He said that there was vastly increased expenditure on travel, and he wanted to know the reasons for it. One of the reasons is that railway fares have gone up by some 55 per cent., as, indeed, has die price of many other items. I think that perhaps the most important reason, however, is that the Government, unlike Governments before the war, give three free return fares a year to their sailors. They did not get these three free return fares before, and naturally the issue of these free tickets puts up the cost of travelling as it appears in the Estimate. It is, however, a cost which we are

very willing to bear. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) asked about the buildings in which instruction is given. I agree with him as to the importance of these buildings being adequately constructed so that the instructors may have every possible facility. As he knows, many of these buildings are old. They had not been repaired during the war, and many of them had not been repaired for a long time before the war. It is difficult to see that they are kept in the state of repair in which we would like them to be, as much as he would. We will see, however, particularly after his speech, that they are not forgotten.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) raised rather an obscure but none the less important point. The answer is briefly this: after the outbreak of war in 1939 it was decided that 25 per cent. bonuses should be paid to emergency list officers up to and including the rank of lieutenant-commander, but not to officers promoted to commander's rank or above after being called out. That was based on the fact that, although the Admiralty has power to alter conditions of service without notice and without recognition of vested rights, it has been usual, so far as we could, to defer the enforcement of non-beneficial changes until the officer's next promotion following the change.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with this matter from the point of view of the regulation, which I gave today, under which these officers serve on the emergency list? It was in the contract that they were to receive full pay and 25 per cent. bonus.

Mr. Dugdale: There seems to be some doubt about the contract made. I will explain to the best of my ability the nature of the contract.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: This is very important.

Mr. Dugdale: I think perhaps that I might be allowed an odd sentence or two. I suggest that the continuance of the bonus to officers when promoted to lieutenant-commander is allowed as each promotion is automatic, but promotion to commander or captain, a promotion to which an officer on the emergency list has no


vested claim, is not, and the bonus would, therefore, cease if an officer were promoted to those ranks.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is not in accordance with the regulations.

Mr. Dugdale: The particular officer to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring is claiming a 25 per cent. bonus for the period he is serving as acting captain. That is after promotion since being called out. He was promoted a commander before he was called out, but allowed to receive bonus while holding this rank because he was on the list before 1930. When he was promoted captain, and only then, the bonus ceased under the rules in force. That is our interpretation, and we consider it a good interpretation, of the rules. It is unfortunate that our interpretation does not agree with that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We have looked at this matter in the most sympathetic manner, but that is the decision reached.
One of the questions asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) dealt with chaplains and doctors. He asked if their pay and conditions of service would be altered. It is not our intention to alter their pay or conditions of service. I cannot say more now because investigations are still proceeding, and until they are completed I cannot say what in fact will be the exact new set-up. It may be the same as now or it may be altered, but whatever happens to it their pay and conditions of service will not be altered.

Commander Maitland: Can the hon. Gentleman give the number of redundant officers in this respect?

Mr. Dugdale: The committee is now discussing what the future of this service will be, and I cannot anticipate what figures they will give. They may say that there will have to be fewer officers, or they may not. We realise to the full the services that have been given and are being given by chaplains, doctors and others, and we shall see that they do not suffer. More than that I cannot say now. I obviously cannot commit myself to saying that there will be a definite number now and a definite number hereafter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that warrant officers had guided his footstetps. I am not clear where they guided them and whether

it was on to the benches opposite; but wherever they guided them he is apparently satisfied with the concessions we are giving them.

Commander Maitland: I do not think much of them.

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may not think much of them, but they are concessions which give warrant officers something which was not given them by previous Governments which he supported. In fact, even though they do not give the warrant officers all they want, they give them something definitely more than they were given by previous Governments. That is something which he ought to realise. He said that he did not want the door to promotion closed. Nor do we. We want to see that every opportunity is given to every rank to get the highest possible promotion, and we have taken steps to see, as he knows, that, roughly speaking, something like 25 per cent. of those on the lower deck will get promotion to commissioned rank. That figure is not the exact one, but it is the figure we are reckoning on now. At any rate, it is certainly more than the prewar figure.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman then passed to the question of the repair of buildings. He said—using, perhaps, a rather curious phrase—that he hoped the buildings would not fall between two stools. That, I agree, would be somewhat unfortunate. We fully realise the difficulty that exists in getting these buildings repaired. I wish to make it perfectly clear that many of these buildings had not been repaired for years before the war, when there was an ample supply of material with which to repair them, and when there were men out of work. Those buildings should have been repaired many years ago; it is now our duty to repair them as best we can, at a time when there is a tremendous demand for both labour and material, which are in very short supply.

Mr. Bracken: Modernise, not repair.

Mr. Dugdale: I agree, modernise would be a better expression. We will certainly do everything we can to see that they are repaired as far as possible, but it is unfortunate that the modernisation which many of us would like to carry out cannot be done for reasons of which we are all aware.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was very concerned about the expenditure on fuel. I am not certain, but I think he may have been under the misapprehension that our battleships burn coal.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.

Mr. Dugdale: I thought he was worried that the shortage of coal was due to the fact that our battleships were using coal. I can assure him that that is not now the case. Dealing with the question of the use of oil, I most emphatically disagree with him. We consider it of the greatest importance that the Home Fleet should go on its cruise this autumn, and that the West Indies is a suitable place for that cruise. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are British subjects in the West Indies which have been threatened with attack, and threats have been made that British territory would be invaded. In those circumstances, it seems most suitable that British ships should go for a cruise in that part of the world.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was American territory. In a sense, it is part of the American hemisphere, but I think that even the President of the United States would agree that not all of it is American territory. Just as ships of the United States cruise in the Mediterranean with no protest from us so, I think, they will be quite agreeable to our ships cruising in the West Indies. I do not foresee receiving any protest from them on that score.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman give us the approximate costs of the exercises to be carried out in the West Indies?

Mr. Dugdale: I could not possibly give even the approximate costs without notice. I cannot even give the exact mileage they will cover. The costs no doubt, will be considerable, but I believe that they are perfectly justified. If the Navy decided that its Fleet was not to cruise, it would be most unjustifiable. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's views on the subject may be, I respect them. I know that he does not approve of any Fleet at all. However, whatever his views may be, I, as the Minister here responsible for the Fleet, say that it is the duty of the Fleet to go

on that cruise, and that it is right that it should go on it. In that, I think I shall have the approval of all other hon. Members.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) raised a number of points, but I do not think he required an answer from me. He dealt largely with the subject of warrant officers.

Mr. Bracken: Could the hon. Gentleman give me a promise that he will look into the question of when the Admiralty are willing to depart for good from Bath?

Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly look into that question. Obviously, I cannot give an assurance now, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we fully realise the importance and the beauty of Bath, and that we have taken steps to de-requisition as many of its buildings as we can.

5.26 p.m.

Captain Marsden: I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier, but I wish to comment on one statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. As regards the improvement in the position of warrant officers, he said that had been done by this Government and by no other Governments. [An HON. MEMBER "Quite true."] That is a very silly thing to say; it rather suggests that no other Government ever did anything at all. Other Governments have done far more for warrant officers than this Government has ever done. Their position has been enhanced and their status improved, chiefly by Conservative Governments. There is nobody on this side of the House who would not welcome the improvement of the position of the warrant officers. Whether they would prefer the wardroom mess to the very happy, comfortable surroundings of a warrant officers' mess remains to be seen. A great number will not. Do not let us have it on record that this Government have done something which no Conservative Government have ever done, because the greatest good done for warrant officers has been done not by this Government, but by Conservative Governments.
About the West Indies cruise, I am sure that everybody is glad that is being undertaken. What is bothering the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is, I believe, that he thinks the Duke of Edinburgh is going on it.

Commander Pursey: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the House some idea of the concessions which a Conservative Government ever granted to the warrant officers? The main concessions given to warrant officers came from a Liberal Government; they received practically nothing from Conservative Governments in the years between the wars.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I cannot allow that question to be answered.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1947–48.

ADDITIONAL NUMBERS

Resolution reported:
That an additional number, not exceeding 13,000 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1948.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1948–49— REPORT [9th March]

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Resolution reported:
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 850,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 5949.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I wish to deal with a subject which was, I think, hardly mentioned, or not mentioned at all, in the Debate on the Army Estimates last week. I want to say a few words, in so far as it affects the Army, on the White Paper published last December on the needs of the Armed Forces for land. We were half promised a Debate on this subject. It is a very important subject, and I am sorry that the Government did not put down a Motion to approve the White Paper.
The White Paper proposes the permanent use of no less than one million acres of this country—that is to say, one in every 56 acres in the United Kingdom—for the Fighting Forces. Of this one million acres, 700,000 are required for training, and, of that total, 90 per cent. are required for training the Army. I am afraid it is also a fact that the Army is responsible for most of the specific proposals which have aroused the strongest objections.
The requirements of the Army are not evenly distributed among the different parts of the Kingdom. About 1½ per cent. of the land required is in England, 2 per cent. is in Wales and less than half of 1 per cent. is in Scotland. The first question which arises is, Why is such a small use made of Scotland, which includes two-thirds of the wild country of the United Kingdom? Why is a preponderating use made of England, which is five times as densely populated as Scotland? Three-quarters of the land required for training is to be in England, with the result that the impact of the Army upon the facilities for recreation is very severe indeed, though the public are not wholly excluded from Army land.
The answer made by the Government to my question is in the White Paper. They give three reasons for avoiding Scotland. One is the lie of the land and another is the climate. The difficulties of the lie of the land have been exaggerated, I suggest. Secondly, is there any part of the United Kingdom which has not a bad climate? Surely these disadvantages are compensated for by the sparsity of population in Scotland? There is a much more serious objection to the greater use of Scotland, and it is the shortage of accommodation there and the fact that the members of the Territorial Army, which is mostly in England, have to be trained near their homes. I see the force of that argument, but the occupation of nearly 500,000 acres in congested England seems to be a very serious matter at a time when we have to grow more food in order to survive. I hope that the greater use of Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Dominions will be considered as a policy for the future.
In their search for areas which are not open to objection the Government have asked the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Council for the


Preservation of Rural Wales to co-operate by suggesting alternatives. That invitation was welcomed, but I should like to point out that those councils would be in a stronger position to give constructive advice if they knew what the Army requirements are in each command and the extent to which each command must, in the opinion of the War Office, be self-sufficient. The White Paper shows the allocation among different parts of the United Kingdom; why cannot they be given information as to allocation among the commands? If these councils were given that information, they could give more help by way of constructive suggestion and by influencing public opinion.
The next point is that the White Paper talks about a joint user of the same area by different Services. Paragraphs 8, 15 and 26 say that the Services ought to aim at a joint user, in order to reduce the total area. We have been told by Ministers, in familiar but untrue jargon, that they have this point constantly in mind. We have had Government pronouncements that no opportunity will be lost—another familiar cliché—to make one training area serve for more than one Service. We were told that a committee had been set up to promote that result. All I can say is that the committee seems to have been singularly unsuccessful. In the list of land requirements which has been supplied to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England there is not one instance of genuine joint use.
It is true that two instances of it have been claimed. We are told that there is joint use by the Army and the Royal Marines of the field firing range on Dartmoor. In fact, the Royal Marines appear to have been given the almost exclusive use of it. It is of very little use to the Army. We have also been told that there is joint use of the Battle Hill area in North Yorkshire by the Army and by the R.A.F. Regiment. The fact is that there are separate areas of which the exclusive use is given to one Service or the other. There is no joint use at all at Battle Hill. Why should not infantry training by the Army, the Royal Marines and the R.A.F. Regiment be done on the same piece of ground? Why should not the same small-arms range be used by the three Services? Training programmes would have to be co-ordinated, of course, but surely that is not an insuperable difficulty. Unless the

policy of joint user is put into effect it will be difficult to take the professions of the Government on this matter very seriously.
I now want to draw the attention of the House to the very serious interference by the War Office proposals with national parks, nature preserves and other amenities. The Army are taking something like 160,000 acres in areas recommended by the Hobhouse Report for national parks. National parks were not even mentioned by the Secretary of State in his speech upon the Requisitioned Land Bill last December, yet the Army wants to use permanently a large part of the North Yorkshire moors national park, and to discharge live ammunition there, with the result that the public would be excluded. They want to take a big part of the Pembrokeshire coast national parkland, perhaps the finest coast scenery in Great Britain; about 40,000 acres of Dartmoor, and so make it impossible to have a national park at all in the Northern part of Dartmoor; about 18,000 acres in the very middle of the North Wales national park; and part of the Lake District park area—only a small part, it is true—near Ullswater.
I should like to call the attention of the House to the Hobhouse Report on National Parks. It says in paragraph 151:
The extensive demands of the Service Departments for training areas in the wild uncultivated land of England and Wales have most serious implications for National Parks, especially where land is required for training with live ammunition. From this land the public would be excluded on account of danger from firing and from unexploded missiles. Moreover, the problem is not confined to considerations of acreage alone, for many of the areas involved are of outstanding interest and beauty. It would be no exaggeration to say that the appropriation of a number of the particular areas now listed for acquisition by the Service Departments would take the heart out of the proposed National Park areas in which they are sited, and in certain cases render our proposals for the designation of individual National Park entirely nugatory.
Apart from national parks, there are the areas recommended as nature reserves by the Wild Life Conservation Committee. It is proposed to use one of these, Braunton Burrows, for combined operations, which will do irreparable damage to any nature reserve. I would also mention the National Trust. I hope we can have an assurance that the War Office has


no designs on any land or building belonging to the National Trust. If it has, it will be very discouraging to would-be benefactors of the National Trust.
I want to say two or three sentences about commons and footpaths, especially coast footpaths. I submit that common land ought not to be acquired, but only—where it is absolutely necessary—used by the Army; that common rights ought not to be extinguished; and that the commoners and the public generally ought at any rate to be allowed intermittent access to commons. Footpaths ought, if possible, to be kept open, especially coast footpaths and paths giving access to beaches. If this is not provided for, the tank gunnery schools at Purbeck and in Pembrokeshire will destroy access to long stretches of the coast.
None of us on this side of the House disputes that the Army must be properly trained, and none of us disputes that the areas of land required for this purpose must be greater than before the war because of the larger reserve Army, the proposed continuous training of the Territorials, the greater proportion of tracked vehicles, the increase in mobility and the range of weapons, the design of new weapons and the use of live ammunition. Having spoken last week on the needs of the Territorial Army I should be the last person to deny all that. But facilities for public recreation are necessary too, in the interests of the Army itself which requires fit men. I hope therefore that the War Office will give attention to these points. They will of course be brought to the attention of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning inspectors who are holding inquiries in accordance with the White Paper.

5.43 P.m.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), but I can start by endorsing almost everything that he has said. I came here armed with a number of quotations of which he has already taken advantage, and I need therefore do little more than underline the very serious concern which is felt about the requirements of the Service Departments for the use of land. Many of the arguments used in the White Paper are exceedingly weak. The White Paper says

that it is not possible to make greater use of Scotland because of the nature of the terrain and the climate. Surely we are not training a fair-weather Army? At the beginning of the war when I was being trained in the Artillery, we needed difficult terrain and we were not particularly daunted by areas which had bad climatic conditions. If the Army is going into action in future, it will not be able to rely on the climate of the Mediterranean or upon an open rolling country. It would seem that much more consideration should be given to training possibilities in Scotland and Northern Ireland——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: To what part of Scotland does the hon. Member refer?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: I had the pleasure of visiting Scotland last summer, and I noticed that in considerable areas of Western Scotland there were large hutted camps and other accommodation used by the Services for training during the war. That area was used to a very considerable extent. Large areas of Scotland were completely cut off during the war for military training purposes. While I am not suggesting that we should deprive the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) of access to large parts of his native land, I do suggest that land and accommodation used during the war could be used again.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Member be more precise? After all, Scotland is a very big place. Where does the hon. Member want these training areas?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: There are large areas outside South Ayrshire in the Northern and Western parts of Scotland which have fewer alternative claims for public use than almost anywhere else in this island. I would not dispute that the hon. Member knows a great deal more about the local terrain than I do, and I shall not therefore venture further on his own ground.
I would ask whether in this matter the War Office is exercising the maximum possible discrimination between the needs of the Regular Army and those of the Territorial Army. It is quite obvious that the Territorial Army needs access to land just outside the industrial areas, but it is also obvious that for Regular Army training it is possible, with a little administrative ingenuity, to go further afield. I and my hon. Friends from Staffordshire


kept the House quite a long time on one occasion discussing the merits and demerits of Cannock Chase. We made the point then that while Cannock Chase is an example of an area which is suitable for some Territorial training, a great deal of Regular military commitments take up land there in one of the few beauty spots ready of access to the population of the West Midlands. I feel sure that what is true of Cannock Chase is true of many other areas.
Having said that, I would like to pursue a little further some more general issues which have been discussed during these Debates on the Army Estimates. I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary because, in spite of all the pressure that was put on the Government last year to give the public more information on the Army Estimates, they have this year succeeded in giving even less information than we had last year, which is a very remarkable achievement. They state in their White Paper that it is the policy of the Government to give the public the greatest amount of information consistent with essential security. About the only extra information is given on pages 10 to 14 of the Army Estimates, where, under the heading of "Army," is set out what appears to be the brief of the first lecture to be given to a recruit on entering the Army. It seems somewhat reminiscent of Elementary Lectures, Part I, which I was given as a recruit at my Preliminary Training Centre. It certainly does not give any more information than would be given to a recruit at that early stage of his training.
I want to press still further that, bearing in mind the essential needs of security, my right hon. Friend should again look at these Estimates to see if further information can be given. It is a little unsatisfactory that the "New Statesman" should be so much more informative than Vote A, that statements can be made that we have a very limited number of formations ready for active service and that arms are starved of technical recruits, and that no hon. Member in any part of the House has information which will enable him to substantiate or deny such allegations. Bearing in mind the Vote of 850,000 men which we are being asked to pass, this House should ask and press for further information.
Normally, I believe that the achievements after the second world war can be

compared very favourably with those after the first world war, but when one turns to the run-down of the Services I am afraid that the comparison works much the other way. My right hon. Friend quoted the other day from a document giving figures of the war of the Spanish Succession. I want to quote from the same document a few figures in relation to one of the later stages of our history, because the public should be aware of these figures. They show that in 1917 the manpower strength of the Army was 3.8 million. By 1921, it had run down to 296,948. By 1938, one year before the outbreak of the last war, the figure was 193,342. In 1945, the manpower of the Army rose to 2.9 million, and in September, 1947, it had only run down to a figure of 742,799. On the basis of the figures now before us, we shall still have 345,000 men in the Regular and conscript Army by 31st March, 1949. That is a larger figure than we had in this country in 1921, even if one adds all the 1921 Territorial Army on to the Regular Army figure.
These are large and significant figures, and before this House can feel really satisfied that in this economic crisis we can afford that amount of manpower in the Army, we should have a good deal more information than we have already been given. I wish to press a little more closely a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) on the achievements of the manpower economy committees. At a very early hour on Thursday morning last the Under-Secretary of State said a little about what the manpower committees had done. He said that they had made a number of recommendations which were now being implemented. Can we not have some more information on the work of these manpower committees? Can we not know some of their recommendations? Is it impossible for the War Office to give us some idea of the savings of manpower that will be effected if these recommendations are put into effect? Could we have a little more information on how these manpower economy committees have worked? Have they had the advice of specialists on organisation and methods? I hope that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to say a little more about them when he deals with that point.
Another point on which I would like some information is the raising of the call-


up age to 18 years 9 months by 1950. That will have a serious effect on the young men who are to be called up. During the whole of the period prior to their service they are bound to be unsettled; they are not fitting into normal life in industry or elsewhere. If the Army cannot handle these men I should have thought that it would have been better to see if some alternative method could not be found of reducing the call-up without delaying it, and so lessen the period of uncertainty.
The Economic White Paper points out that we shall be seriously short this year of skilled workers in certain occupations—in the iron foundries, the steel industry, etc. Would it not be easier, rather than to delay the general age of call-up, to extend the exemptions from call-up on the industrial grounds which we have already applied in the case of coalmining and agriculture, and in that way minimise the economic effect of the call-up, as well as avoid lengthening the period of unsettlement of the youth of the country?
In his speech on the Army Estimates my right hon. Friend went to great pains to stress the standards of accommodation that were being given to our troops in Germany. I thought that he went a little too far in that direction. In fact, last autumn, when I had the opportunity of visiting Hamburg, quite responsible persons made the point to me that the standards and quantity of accommodation which our troops were occupying in that city were rather higher than was absolutely necessary—standards of housing, theatres, hotel and hospital accommodation. I do not deny that our troops abroad should have good standards, but in a city where thousands of houses are in ruins, where the civilian population is living in holes and in cellars underneath blitzed buildings, I feel that we must try to strike a happy medium and not have too sharp a distinction between the standards of the occupying troops and the standards of the civilian population. I should have felt happier if the accommodation taken by the Army in Germany and elsewhere was controlled by the Control Commission.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): So it is.

Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend says, "So it is," but——

Mr. Shinwell: I mean that the Control Commission have to be consulted.

Mr. Hughes: It may be that the Control Commission have to be consulted, but, as I understand the position, the civilian authorities in Germany have no authority to restrict the amount of accommodation which is taken in the cities by the Army. I feel that a better balance would have been reached had the Control Commission been given greater powers in this direction.
I come to my last point. On 26th March last year, as a result of pressure by a number of hon. Members on this side of the House, the then Secretary of State for War announced the setting up of welfare committees in the Army on lines somewhat similar to those which had already been announced by the Navy. I recognise and welcome the magnificent work which my right hon. Friend has been doing in the direction of improving the standards of Army welfare in the period since he has been in office. I am sure that he will be the first to recognise the importance of the maximum possible democratic participation in welfare work in the Army, subject to the necessary requirements of discipline. I would ask him to tell us what is happening to these welfare committees? How many have been set up, and what work are they doing; what have been their achievements?
In some of the outlying units abroad which I had the opportunity to visit last year, I was disturbed about the welfare conditions. Had a welfare committee of this kind been in existence in some of these overseas stations many of the grievances of the troops which are put to Parliamentary delegations who happen to appear would have been settled a great deal earlier than they actually were. Parliamentary delegations visiting outlying stations and units find the troops coming to them with grievances about local allowances, postal arrangements, the non-supply of civilian clothing and arrears of pay. I must say that on these points being taken up with the War Office a satisfactory solution has been reached, but a Parliamentary delegation cannot supplant a welfare committee. The welfare of our troops should not be left to these rather sporadic visits by Members of Parliament. Would it be possible to have some better system of visits to out-


lying units at regular intervals by representatives of the War Office, who could find out for themselves what is going on, and check up on the administration of our outlying commands and outlying administrative headquarters?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) is, as the House knows, a doughty champion of footpaths, commons, open spaces and the preservation of rural England. He has complained that rural England has got about three-quarters of the Army training areas, and he thinks a lot more of them ought to go to rural Scotland. He quite rightly mentioned the three objections there are to that course and, as a Scottish Member, I do not mind underlining those objections. First, there is climate. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) said that we do not want to train a fair-weather Army. But, we have precious little time to train the new intake into the Army, and have to train them under the most advantageous conditions we can. We have no time to train them in manhandling their guns out of bogs, and things like that.
The difficulty about Scotland is not that it rains sometimes, but that some of the training areas there are seriously disadvantaged from an Army point of view because of the presence of bogs. I had to spend some time in the early days of the war making reconnaissance for artillery ranges in Scotland, and I know the difficulty. Even when we take the most suitable land we can, we find that guns are constantly getting bogged, and it is a great deal more difficult in the case of tracked vehicles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham also said that we needed to have areas somewhere near accommodation and that the T.A. must train near its home stations, but there is no accommodation in a great many of these wild open spaces of Scotland. We have two armoured divisions, and one is the 56th London Division, which did very great service during the war. The regiments which go to make up its battle order have had recent experience of battle and of armoured fighting. If one considers regiments like the City of London Yeomanry—the "Rough Riders"—the County of

London Yeomanry—the "Sharpshooters"—and the Westminster Dragoons, or the motor battalion, Queen Victoria's Rifles, one can quite understand the desire in the War Office that this fine London division should remain an armoured division. But, the trouble about an armoured division is that there must be a training area nearby to which it can get easily. It pre-supposes accommodation in London and some facility for frequently moving out of London to train somewhere near to London in order to make Territorial Army training possible.
The other armoured division is a Yorkshire division. It may be that my hon. Friend in referring to training areas in Yorkshire had in mind the areas over which that armoured division will train. It was not the choice of the right hon. Gentleman, but was made long before he took office, and it seems to me that it would have been more sensible to have made some other division, more advantageously placed territorially as regards training areas in country districts, one of our armoured divisions, instead of making a London division 50 per cent, of our total armoured division strength.
The Secretary of State has told us that the target for the Regular Army is about 200,000 all ranks, excluding the National Service men, and that he hopes that target will be reached by 31st March, 1949. To do that, and having made allowances for the short service volunteers, voluntary enlistment must total about 3,000 a month. When it is considered that the Regular Army before the war had the strength of about 220,000, that it will now have to train National Service men to a total of about 350,000 from the beginning of 1949, and about 200,000 from mid-1950 onwards, and in addition to find a cadre of officers and N.C.O.s for the Territorial Army, it will be readily seen that it will be stretched to its utmost limits. The principles of war do not change with changes in applied science, and of those principles the greatest is to concentrate the maximum force at the decisive point.
We depend upon our Regular Army to provide a mobile striking force, and in order to do that we must reduce the need for dispersion to a minimum. How can that be done? I suggest two ways. First I want to talk about Colonial Forces. Vote A shows an increase of Colonial troops from about 90,000 to 153,000,


Which figure includes the Gurkha troops of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) spoke so eloquently when we discussed the Estimates last week, and also labour corps for dealing with evacuation of British troops from certain areas. In the Army Estimates for 1947–48 my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) spoke about the possibility of raising considerable Colonial Forces from East and West Africa, from the West Indies, from Ceylon, Malaya and Hong Kong. The same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) in the Debate last week. I am sure they are right. The population of British West Africa and of the East African Colonies is about 40 million, which is not very far short of the population of the whole of the British Isles.
Here is a vast reserve of manpower and good will ready to be used. It is not, in my submission, making the best use of a British Regular battalion to keep it for three or four years in a single unit station. It would be of immense advantage if we could use coloured troops for garrison duties of this kind. I mention this particularly this year, because it seems to me that we have at this time a magnificent opportunity of using officers formerly in the Indian Army for training these coloured troops. A scheme of this kind would not only enable a greater concentration of our small Regular Army, but it would do much to raise the standard of life in our Colonial Empire. I was very glad that the Under-Secretary told us, early last Thursday morning, that the long-term policy with regard to Colonial troops is now, since the recent tour of the C.I.G.S., the subject of consultations between the Colonial Governors and the Commanders-in-Chief. I hope that these points, which have been made more than once in this House, will be borne most earnestly in mind, particularly with regard to the opportunity of using officers who have been so used to training and working with coloured troops.
The second point which I wish to make with regard to the concentrating of our Regular striking Force is one which, I am quite aware, is not so popular. Indeed, in certain quarters it is very unpopular, but I make no apology for putting it forward, because I think it is

a point we ought to consider, as the situation is so desperately serious. When I look at these Vote A figures and see that the Polish Resettlement Corps and the Polish Land Forces are to run down from a little under 140,000 to 30,000 this year, I wonder if we are really wise. Not all of them, but many of these Polish soldiers are very good soldiers indeed. I know that, because I have had the honour to serve with and alongside them. I believe that a great many of them would prefer to transfer to a Polish contingent of all arms, under British command, than to have the choice of returning to Poland, of going elsewhere overseas or of being absorbed in a civilian occupation in this country.
I believe that exactly the same is true of refugees from other European countries which have fallen under Russian dominaton—for example, Czechoslovakia. I believe that that is a possibility which we ought at any rate to consider, to have a European voluntary force, under British command, working alongside the British Regular Army. It might even be possible, by agreement with the United States of America and France, to recruit a German force for the defence of the Western zone against aggression, but I quite realise that that is hardly a matter which can be discussed under Vote A of the Army Estimates.
May I say something which I believe would greatly help the right hon. Gentleman in his attempt to find recruits for the Regular Army? He has admitted to a certain difficulty of recruitment, especially for the technical arms. I believe that when a young man is making up his mind about the career upon which he proposes to embark, the thing that weighs most with him is not so much the pay—not immediately the pay—but the prospects which confront him as he looks into the future. I believe that intending recruits are influenced to some extent by the shortage of married quarters, and by the obsolescence of Army barracks. I have lived in a good many barracks in my life, and very few of them were quite so obsolete as the college in which I lived for three years in Oxford. But I believe these things are important. The young man who is thinking about whether he shall take up an Army career wonders what is to happen to him when, in his early forties, after 20 years of service to his


country, he is discharged from the Army, and left to fend for himself, without any kind of prospects, or any great prospect, of a future career.
I am quite certain that we in this House—and if anything is a non-party matter I think this is—ought to make the service of the State a life's career with an absolute guarantee, in so far as that can be given, of civilian employment for a man who has satisfactorily completed a long-term engagement with the Armed Forces. The opportunities for doing this have been greatly widened, and very much increased, since the State has become a large employer of labour in the socialised industries. I believe that that wider possibility gives opportunities for men who have left the Army to be employed, for example, in the transport, electricity and, shortly, in the gas industries, as engineers, boiler men, electricians and technicians of all kinds. In Government offices and installations, and in the nationalised industries themselves, I believe there are great opportunities for men to be used as caretakers, storemen, watchmen and clerical workers of every grade. There is also an opening in forestry for lorry drivers, general labourers and so on.
I believe that an undertaking to provide civilian employment after military service would involve agreement with the trade unions to accept Army tradesmen and others as union members. I am in no way qualified to speak on behalf of the trade unions, but I hope and believe that there would, at this time, be no difficulty in coming to an agreement on those lines. After all, the trade unions must recognise, as we in this House must recognise, that at this present time our country, our way of life, and our very existence as a free people is in great and growing danger. Can we doubt that war will be more likely if the only Power which is likely to cause it believes that the democracies are militarily weak? Because Hitler made that mistake, it does not follow that others will not make it also.
It is extraordinary how blind men are to the lessons of history. In an age when man's mastery of science has outstripped his mercy, pity, peace and love, when the elemental struggle with which we are faced even now is between freedom and its denial, justice and injustice and right and wrong, it is imperative that we should act with boldness and imagination, for every-

thing in which we believe is at stake. In closing, I say for our part, let us free our Regular Army from as many as possible of its extraneous duties and fashion it into a well-equipped and highly mobile striking force as our military contribution to Western Union. Let us do this quickly, for time is not on our side. Swift and even spectacular action now may save the day.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Arguments have been advanced from both sides of the House on the subject of land for the Forces. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) protested that too much land in the beauty spots of England, as well as agricultural land, was being taken for the training of the Army. His suggestion was, "Scotland has enough—send them to Scotland." I was surprised to hear that view endorsed by my namesake the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes), who spoke from the Labour benches. He said, "England and Wales have their quota of troops; the rest must go to Scotland." I am afraid that the Secretary of State for War might yield to this curious alliance of Wales and England against Scotland. I protest against the suggestion and say that, as far as Scotland is concerned, public opinion does not wish to see further encroachments by the Army on Scottish territory.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) was quite right in putting forward practical objections from a military point of view to illustrate the weakness of the case for bringing troops to Scotland. He pointed out what other hon. Members have forgotten. In Scotland, he said, there is much boggy land. That is a commonsense, practical thing to point out to people who have not studied the geography of Scotland. The hon. Member pointed out what would happen when the Army went into the boggy land with their military equipment, tanks and motor vehicles. I do not know what would be the simple answer to that. It is a matter for my military friends. If the Army is transferred to the North-West of Scotland, it will be bogged. Presumably, that will be training for the striking force contemplated by the hon. Member for Western Aberdeen. I ask the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton to define the spots in Scotland to which the Army should be


transferred for training. Did he mean the South of Scotland? If he contemplates the establishment of military training centres in the South of Scotland, where there is the best agricultural land, he will find that there will be the strongest opposition from the county councils, similar to that expressed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) when he described the Secretary of State for War as a "robber baron."
The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton said that in the course of his wanderings somewhere about the North West of Scotland, he had seen a large number of derelict military huts. He suggested that that would be the very place for training the British Army. Perhaps he does not know that most of the military huts have already been occupied by a different kind of army—the army of homeless squatters. We will do everything possible to prevent the homeless squatters from being driven out of these places so long as the homeless of Scotland are living five, six or even a dozen in one room.
What will happen if the Army adopt the suggestion of these reactionary Labour and Conservative Members? If the Army go to Scotland, I presume that hon. Members will want the soldiers to be contented and properly housed. The Secretary of State for War has done some useful public work recently in pointing out that soldiers are living in out-of-date barracks in hopeless housing conditions. I assume that if a military training centre were established in the North, East or West of Scotland, we would require to house soldiers. If we used building labour for the erection of married quarters for soldiers, a call would be made upon the labour organisation required for the provision of accommodation for miners and agricultural workers. We would have building labour used for that purpose when civilians are living in houses in conditions little better than those in Central Africa. I protest in the strongest possible way against the light-hearted proposal that because people want to save the beauty spots of England and Wales, the troops should be pushed off to Scotland.
The Secretary of State for War talked last week about the moral welfare of the troops. I suggest that in discussing that subject we must consider what might be the effect upon the civilian population of bringing into these areas of Scotland a large number of soldiers. In parts of Ayrshire the introduction of soldiers during the war was something new. I come from an area where we had no soldiers, but where now we have Polish soldiers. I disagree with the hon. Member for Western Aberdeen. The figures in the Estimates show that there is one Polish officer to every two soldiers in the Polish Resettlement Corps. When there is a proportion of one officer to every two men, the only possible thing to do is to demobilise that organisation and transfer its members into useful industrial occupations. If that were done, the local population would back the move with the greatest enthusiasm. We are tired of seeing the Poles there. We are tired of seeing soldiers marching through the streets. Their presence causes a serious social problem for the women and young children in this locality. In February, I asked the Secretary of State for War a Question:
… how many hospitals there are for the treatment of venereal disease for soldiers; how many nurses are employed in these hospitals; and how many cases were treated in 1947.
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
There are no military hospitals which treat venereal diseases alone. Patients who suffer from such illness are treated at special centres, of which there are, approximately, 27 at home and overseas. Treatment, except for female cases and complicated cases needing ward treatment, is carried out by male special treatment orderlies, and not by nurses; I cannot readily state the number of special treatment orderlies so employed. The number of cases treated from January to November, 1947, was about 34,700. Figures for December, 1947, have not yet been received."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 201–2.]
When we have that statement that there are 34,700 cases of venereal disease in the Army, it presents a social problem for the local authorities who have to deal with the effect upon the civilian population. I ask the Secretary of State to give some reassuring statement that this evil is getting less, both from the point of view of the soldiers and of the civilian population.
Finally, I would like to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen, which I think he raised with


the intention of being helpful. The hon. Member wants a striking force. Against whom? Throughout all these Debates there runs this persistent argument that we need a striking force, presumably against Soviet Russia. Do hon. Members realise what they are talking about? A striking force against Soviet Russia? An hon. Member opposite talked about the climate of Scotland, but what about the climate of Russia? Do the military experts realise what they are talking about in contemplating a striking force against Russia? I believe that talking in this way is absolute defeatism, and that all the military gentlemen who have spoken in this Debate—and spoken earnestly and sincerely—are not facing realities. We should, in these Estimates and in all Army, Navy and Air Estimates, set our faces resolutely against going into another war, and should take every possible opportunity of presenting that point of view to the British nation.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I am not going to say a word about the strategic aspects of these problems. When I was in the Army, I found that my views on strategy received much less recognition than I thought they merited, and I have no reason to think that the response of hon. Members on either side of this House would be very different.
I think many of us who sat through the Debate last week finished up in a mood of some anxiety and unhappiness. I have always been trained to believe that in any undertaking the most important thing is to be quite clear as to the immediate objective. The first reason for my unhappiness was that I felt that we were not very clear, in the short term, as to what kind of an Army is wanted, for what purpose it is being prepared, and by what time it has to be ready. I felt that the answers we received to these questions were rather hesitating, and, in some cases, rather conflicting. The second reason why I felt unhappy was that it seemed to me that when we looked at all three sections of our Forces—the volunteer Regulars, the volunteer Territorials and the National Service men—the prospects in none of these three cases are particularly rosy at the moment. I certainly do not blame the heads of the Services for that. I believe there never was a time when the Army was more

intelligently or sensibly run, or when the Service heads were more conscious of the ever-changing needs of modern war.
I feel that in one direction there is still much to be done, and that is in the economical use of manpower. The Services are traditionally extravagant in manpower, and sometimes I have thought that they ought not to be entrusted with any manpower whatever. In the Army, a squad of men used to be regarded as the smallest possible human entity—the equivalent of a molecule or an atom. People who have responsibility for manpower in industry, when they see the way in which the Services use manpower, are apt to pass from one apoplectic fit to another. I hesitate to-mention "time and motion study" to the heads of the Services, or they too, I suppose, might have apoplectic fits. I hope, however, that this manpower committee will be backed up and that it will achieve results.
"Overheads" must be continuously attacked—this question of the ratio of "teeth to tail" to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) referred. This tendency on the part of headquarters staffs to elephantine growth, is becoming almost a law of nature. Only strong-minded and ruthless action on the part of a commander will get results. He will be confronted with 20 good reasons why he should increase the size of his staff; he must refuse to listen to them, say that he will just not have them. I will give just one example of what I mean. During the war, Field-Marshal Montgomery was offered the opportunity, as an added adjunct to his staff, of securing the services of myself and several other officers. To our amazement, and that of our friends, Field-Marshal Montgomery said, "No, a thousand times no," though he missed the opportunity of securing, as we thought, the services of a brilliant party of officers on very reasonable terms. That is the kind of action which will get results, and it is the only one that I know. I think none of us will quarrel with the substantial allocation which has been made for research and development. Obviously, we want the best brains we can get, they must be properly remunerated, and I hope they will be.
May I say a word or two on each of the three sections of our Forces which I have mentioned. First, I will deal with the


National Service men. The difficulty in training them in the short time allotted, has been mentioned and I know that it is a very real difficulty. Nevertheless, personally, I am not in favour of abandoning compulsory National Service at the present time. I feel the right thing to go in for is a continual search for new methods of training, and the application of fresh minds to the problem. During the war, our inspired trainers got the most astonishing results, and I hope that those officers who have a special flair for training are being given full scope today. There is one direction which may help, and that is that, as far as possible, men should be allotted jobs in line with their civilian experience. The Army used to have a supreme gift for giving a man a job when he comes into the Army which is as far removed as possible from his civilian experience. I am sure that the more closely Army life can be identified with civilian life the less specialised training will be required and, as a result there will be a gain in efficiency.
It is rather disturbing that one still hears, in spite of the difficulties of training in the short time, of young men hanging about during their training with not much to do. The difficulty is not so much during the early weeks, but during the later months of their training, when they do not seem to be always fully employed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that it is not so, and that it is not going to be the case in future. With regard to the moral aspect which has been mentioned the information which I receive is that there has been a very great improvement during the last year, especially in Germany, and I think the very greatest credit is due to the Commanders, and, in particular, to the Commander-in-Chief.
In regard to the Territorial Army, as an old territorial officer I realise that whatever methods we found successful 10 or 15 years ago are probably quite out of date now, when a different outlook and approach is necessary. It is too early to assess prospects. It is difficult to be very cheerful. It bristles with difficulties and it is quite likely that some major modification to the present scheme may be required in the future, but not, I think, yet.
On the subject of buildings I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the introduction of some

standardised light construction building for the purpose of drill halls. In the past I have known substantial drill halls being built at great expense, and in a few years later they were wanted in some other position. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) raised the question of the name and suggested "Armoury." I think it is a good name against "drill hall." It has tradition behind it, and is also full of modern meaning. More important is this question of local names and associations. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) on that subject. I am sure the War Office underestimates the importance of this. Local loyalties are strong, and it would be madness not to make the most of them.
Speaking as an employer on the subject of paying for a man's time off, most employers are only too glad to do what they can to back up the Territorial Army, but we must remember the growing burden of this kind of thing and the effect on costs. Time off is all right, but making up pay is not, I think, a reasonable burden to throw on employers. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of the Government helping in that direction.
On the subject of the Regular Army, remuneration is, I think, at the root of the problem, particularly the remuneration of the tradesmen and more skilled men which should be raised. The levelling up process has gone too far, and I agree with what has been said about prospects. It is most important. As I understand it, the Regular Army in the future will have to provide a high proportion of N.C.O's. The attributes of a modern N.C.O. are pretty exacting. Quality of leadership is more important than ever before. The N.C.O. will have to exercise responsibility over National Service men coming from all walks of life. It is absolutely vital that we should attract good men, and there is no escaping from the conclusion that the prospects in the Army must be at least as good as those in industry.
I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with married quarters and that he is keen on that, because a contented wife is most important for good morale in the Army. There is also the question of


openings after discharge. The Army will be very much a young man's job in the future, and it is most important that there should be a second career open to him when his time in the Army is up, not only just jobs but jobs carrying responsibility, because many of these soldiers will have been N.C.Os. holding responsible jobs. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that today the Government is a very big employer of labour and that it is growing bigger. Sooner or later we shall have to devise some link-up between the Armed Services and those industries for which the Government have direct responsibility, so as to provide openings for men without them having to start again at the bottom of the ladder.
I cannot close without referring to the need for considering also the question of the remuneration of officers. In the case of officers of middle seniority they are not paid high enough today. Not enough is being allowed for, the tremendous costs of accommodation, and for moves, when abroad, for the education of their children. I hope that something can be done, because some are living too close to the margin. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at that position, because I am sure he will agree that in the long run the welfare of the officers is a very important key to the efficiency of the Service.
All of us on this side of the House are conscious of the difficulties with these problems today. In this Debate we have not tried to make those difficulties any greater for the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible. It has never been harder than today to foresee exactly the needs of the Army or find the right solution for them. There is however a real danger that because of these doubts as to what exactly we are preparing for, policies may be confused, contradictory and very wasteful; and because we have not got quite clearly either a short-term or a long-term aim, the Army may fall into a state of inefficiency at a time of growing peril. I hope the message will go out as a result of this Debate that the Army is a very valued and appreciated form of National Service; that Parliament is determined that what can be done shall be done so that it is more efficient than ever before; that it is a service with a forward looking outlook, a service worthy of the recruitment of the best brains and the best character of the youth of the nation

6.46 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I want to draw attention to one or two points made in the Debate last week which were not fully answered. Before dealing with them, I should like to refer to the question of accommodation. When the Under-Secretary of State for War wound up last week's Debate, he astonished some of us on this side of the House by telling us about married quarters:
We hope, also, to start 500 for other ranks and some 200 for officers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 1186.]
We were very glad to hear him say that, because that was a matter which had been pressed throughout the Debate. However, I must point out to him that in the Estimates, under Vote 8, there is this item: "Home married quarters: New works to be started in 1948–49—Nil." I do not see how, if he has no money to start new works, any new works can be started. Perhaps the Under-Secretary or his right hon. Friend, whoever replies to this Debate, will set our minds at rest. Speaking for myself and for my friends on this side of the House I hope that what he said in his reply is correct, and that there is some mistake in the Estimates themselves.
I should like to ask a question about the number of Infantry battalions that remain in the Army today, and that it is planned to keep in the active Army when it finally takes its peacetime shape. The Under-Secretary was not able to answer that question at the time, but I hope he can do so when he winds up tonight. Some questions were asked about the striking force, to which his right hon. Friend referred. We were glad to hear him refer to it in his opening statement on that day. We asked whether that striking force was ready, and whether he could say of it, as was also said by the Minister of Defence in regard to the naval striking force, that it would be ready to go forward in 10 days. I personally should like an answer to that. I should also like to know what is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards pay rates. I would remind him that his predecessor, who is not in the House at the moment, told us last July that there was a case for the reconsideration of the pay rates. We admit that it might be if the pay rates were raised some of the recruiting difficulties might be got over.
Now I turn to the Territorial Army. I did not want to refer to it last week because it had been covered separately already; but perhaps I may now make this plea to the right hon. Gentleman. During the next two years he will rely entirely upon volunteers and he has made it clear to us that, even after that, the success of the Territorial Army will depend to a very large extent upon the volunteer Territorial as we know him. Does it not, therefore, stand to reason that everything he is doing, or plans to do in the future, should be planned for that volunteer? As one of my hon. and gallant Friends pointed out, it is one thing to deal with a long-service, full-time Regular soldier; one thing to deal with a year's service National Service man; but it is quite another thing to deal properly with a man who is giving his spare time voluntarily to the service of the Crown in the Territorial Army.
Because of that, I venture to think that there was a great deal in the old system in the War Office under which they had a Director-General of the Territorial Army in the Army Council. He could represent to the Army Council the point of view of the volunteers and he knew how to deal with them. I would stress the importance of this matter to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Under-Secretary. I believe that associations all over the country take the view that they would like a return to something like the old system. That is certainly true of the County of London association, of which I am a member.
There are one or two other points to which I would like the Minister to reply. The first is in regard to the War Office. In the other Estimates Debates, reference was made to the number of men in the Government Departments concerned. I find that in 1939 there were 3,708 people in the War Office, for which a sum of £1,308,000 was required. In 1948 there were nearly three times as many—9,915—for which the sum required was only £2,409,000, which means that there has been a great deal of Empire building going on in a lower strata. If the whole thing had been trebled, the amount of money required would also be trebled I suggest that something has got a little out of balance underneath.
In the course of this Debate, hon. Gentlemen, mostly on the other side of the

House, have raised the question of information, suggesting that we want more information from the War Office. The question was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in the Debate on Defence. The argument which was given in reply was that for security reasons—which are well known, if not to the House, to the Select Committee on Estimates which reported to the House, in the fourth report on this subject, during last Session—no more information can be given. I have now studied that report very carefully and I find that the evidence that was given to the Committee on which they based their report seems to have produced these curious points: first, that there was a consideration of this matter in between 1938 and 1939 and that when the 1939 Estimates were issued—at a time when war seemed very near—a number of details which were in the 1938 and previous Estimates were omitted. That will be found in the evidence on page 8.
If the House will remember that, they will then see that the argument for non-publication now—which is based on evidence from German sources, I believe, of the value the prewar Estimates were to them—rather falls to the ground, because though the 1938 Estimates and pre-1938 Estimates may have been of value, the 1939 Estimates may have had no value at all. Therefore, we want to give this matter full consideration, and if hon. Members will look again at the 1939 Estimates they will see that a lot of details for which we have been pressing on this side were supplied in that year—and which, I must give as my opinion to the right hon. Gentleman, could not possibly have helped the enemy at that time. For instance, he will see that we could easily have found from the 1939 Estimates the relation between tooth and tail, and so on, and between one arm and another.
The second point which comes out of the Committee's evidence was the difficulty the experts had in giving an example of the sort of thing which must not be given in Estimates—the first thing they gave was that Naval construction programmes must not be in the Estimates. That was the opinion of the expert intelligence man. Most curiously, we find the naval construction programme has been given in this year's Navy Estimates. It is quite clear, therefore, that there is no certainty in the minds of the experts


on this subject. Thirdly, there is a constant harping on U.N.O. What has the United Nations Organisation got to do with what information we publish in this House? I hope there is no holding back of information, which is to be presented to the people of Britain, just because it has not yet been agreed as to what to do in front of the Military Staffs Committee and in other places.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this again. Nobody wants information to be published which will be of definite value to potential enemies, but we do want information from which we can see whether the money for which he asks is properly required and is being properly spent. I understand we have not yet had a report that should have been made to the House about the consideration of this matter by the Government—it was mentioned in the ninth report of the Select Committee last Session—and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look into that and see that we get a report. I hope he does not think we are being unreasonable; had he been in our position he would have pressed for more information. I ask him to see what he can do to put the House in possession of more information about the valuable Service which he now controls.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to speak for only about two minutes and to raise the question of land for the training of Forces. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I noticed that the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) was very anxious to have a striking force in defence of freedom, justice and the right, and I gathered from his remarks, as he placed these virtues in relation to their opposites, that he and his associates stood for the virtue and I and my associates stood for the opposite. I gathered that was the intention he wanted to convey. I would not like to place the responsibility on the Minister for adjudicating between the hon. Member for West Aberdeen and myself so far as the fight for these particular virtues is concerned.
Let us come back to the question of land. If the Minister is looking towards Scotland he is locking in the wrong direction. I would like to give the Minister a little bit of advice. Let him

study the Debates that have taken place in this House in connection with the other Estimates, on the possibility of a war and of the character of that war, and he will find where to look for land for housing and for training the soldiers. Maybe he has read what was said by one of the leaders of the Opposition Front Bench in the Air Estimates, that we could not defend the aircraft factories and that we should get them off to Winnipeg. Does that convey any meaning to the Minister? In the Navy Debates we were told we cannot defend the docks and harbour installations—get them over to Canada. Does that convey any meaning to the Minister? The Minister should understand what he is being let in for. The idea is gathering force of the possibility of a war of a particular character, where we send all the war potential to Canada and let the people perish. I am with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in saying that every serious and intelligent Member of this House must understand that the main responsibility of the Secretary of State and of every one else concerned, is to make certain that there is never such a thing as a third world war.

7.0 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I shall be brief, as I understand the time is short, and I shall cut out a great deal of what I had meant to say. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will forgive me if I point out to them with the greatest respect that a striking force is absolutely essential to any military force whatever, and that it is not of the slightest use to have a military force if it is not to have a striking force. That is a plain bit not only of military sense but of common sense.

Mr. Gallaeher: It must have bases.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am not to be led away on the matter of bases, for I have only a few minutes and there are one or two other things I want to talk about. I hope the Secretary of State will amplify what the Under-Secretary of State said in the Debate last week. I particularly hope that, in view of the fact that he said he would undertake to consider certain things, that we shall hear something more not only of the Gurkha troops themselves but of the British officers who are called


upon to serve with them. There were several points that we were told would be looked into.
I should like to hear, as would other hon. Members too, what the Secretary of State has to say about the organisation of the British Army. How is it to be organised in future, and what is it to do? Above everything else, has the right hon. Gentleman got 100 per cent. co-operation with the Royal Air Force? In future, the Army, if it is not interlinked with the Royal Air Force, might just as well stay at home; indeed, it had better do so. I was very much disturbed the other day when the Under-Secretary of State said that the territorial connections of the soldiers—their connections with the places where they live—were not a very practical consideration in these days of mechanisation. That astounded me, and, I think, most of the House. What possible connection can there be between mechanising the Army and the place whence a soldier comes and the unit he is to join? I hope that the Secretary of State will realise that to cut off the territorial connections of units in a voluntary Army, such as we have in Britain now, would be the greatest disservice that he could do to the Army.
I come to the question of the dress of the Army, which is a very important matter in connection with esprit de corps. What is this Dress No. 1 to be? I do not think I like the sound of it at all. Walking out dress of that type is of no use to the British Army, and I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will come to realise it. Is the kilt to be restored to the Highland Regiments? If not, why not? At the beginning of the last war the kilt was taken away, not on account of danger of contagious gas, or anything of that sort, but because the Master General of the Ordnance said he would not have any more kilts made. That was the sole reason for taking the kilt away. There was an undertaking given then that the kilt would be restored as soon as peace was restored. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that the kilt will be restored. We have heard that full dress for the Army is obsolete except for the Brigade of Guards and the Household Cavalry. Does that apply to the pipe bands of the Highland and Lowland Regiments? If so, why? Example is very great in this matter, and it is so in

the Army, particularly in peacetime. Would the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to go about dressed as a field-marshal and not in a dress not laid down in any book of regulations on dress in the British Army?

7.5 p.m.

Earl Winterton: The very witty and useful contribution of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Col. Gomme-Duncan) has covered some of the points that I had in my notes on a previous occasion, although I thought that, perhaps, on the whole, I had better not make them; but my hon. and gallant Friend has led me up the garden path, and I must say, looking around in London, that one sees a most extraordinary discrepancy in the standards of smartness. The Brigade of Guards still remain the smartest looking, the best set-up men of any army in the world; but we see some other gentlemen walking about in uniform, both officers and men, who seem to have carried out to a very excessive degree, the idea of a very distinguished soldier, that negligé is desirable in the Armed Forces. There is a very serious side to this matter, and I think some importance is to be attached, at any rate, to a very considerable extent—though, perhaps, I had better be cautious in the presence of my hon. and gallant Friend—to retaining some of the outward symbols of the Army even in these days. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has left the House. No doubt, he has some engagement——

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It was as well he did. I was "going for him."

Earl Winterton: He has left the House, but I must make a comment or two on his speech. He was perfectly entitled to ask for the facts and figures he did, but I must point out, with, I hope, a strong sense of responsibility in this matter, that it is quite impossible to suppose that the British Army can be trained on the meagre allowance of land for training it had before the last war. I would say—this is not an accusation against my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham—that nothing gains popularity more easily in this House or in the country than the complaint that such and such a beauty spot is being taken away for Army train-


ing. Naturally, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said—and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) supported the idea—that there should not be land for training; but they do not want an Army, or an Army to fight for Britain, so, of course they do not want any land for its training. No one has a greater respect for the enemies of this country than I have for the two hon. Gentlemen. I admire people with the courage of their convictions, and I admire people who, openly, in this country confess themselves enemies of this country.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it in Order for the noble Lord to describe me as an enemy of this country?

Earl Winterton: Enemies of what the majority of people in this country stand for. Perhaps, I had better substitute those words, They are enemies of what we fought for in two wars, and for what millions of people laid down their lives.

Mr. Hughes: I think the noble Lord is an enemy of this country.

Earl Winterton: I think I have disposed of the hon. Gentleman. One has to draw a balance in this matter. I hope—and I put this to the right hon. Gentleman—that he will consider some of the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, as to whether or not it is possible, for example, to coalesce the training programmes, to some extent, of the Army, the Royal Air Force, and, to a limited extent, of the Royal Navy. That, I think, was a very substantial suggestion which my hon. Friend made. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) in an admirable speech—in an "interesting" speech, perhaps, would be a more correct term—referred to a point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and me in the last Debate. He asked again, as my right hon. Friend and I asked, whether or not the figures which were given in the "New Statesman" of the effective fighting formations were or were not correct.
The Under-Secretary made an excellent speech on the last occasion, and, for reasons which he was entitled not to give, he did not give way to me when I wanted to ask a question; but today I am perfectly prepared to give way to him or his

right hon. Friend if either of them will answer the question whether or not those figures were correct. They have now been referred to on so many occasions that the right hon. Gentleman should consult his advisers about it. Perhaps "consult" is a rather discourteous way of putting it; he cannot consult with his advisers, because he has the responsibility. At any rate, he should consider—I will not press him further today—whether, the figures having been given, and their accuracy or otherwise having been twice asked for from both sides of the House, more harm than good is not done by the attitude of concealment which the Government are at present adopting.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) referred to a matter on which we should have an answer, namely, the increase in Colonial troops. He said that the number now in the Estimates is 150,000, and asked whether they could not be used to a greater extent—and this is a matter which really affects the Minister of Defence, who I hope will consider this valuable suggestion—than they were ever used in the past, in order to avoid what is always bad for the British Army, namely, the single-garrison station. That is bad for the Army because, as anyone who has been a Regular soldier or a Territorial knows, it means that a unit in that single-garrison station has no proper opportunity for training. I very much hope that the Colonial or Gurkha troops will be used for garrison service to a greater extent than in the past.
I should like to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth in his very strong plea for the essentiality of territorial connections in the Army. I hope that the last word has not been said on that subject. No party issue arises here; it is a problem which has been experienced by successive Secretaries of State for War. From the recruiting point of view there is great value in maintaining territorial connections. I must press once more—I and my hon. Friends did so on the last occasion, but we obtained no reply—the question of married quarters. I tried to ask a question of the Under-Secretary, but for reasons with which I do not quarrel, he was not prepared to give way. Cannot something be done to increase the number of married quarters for both officers and men? In other words, there


must be an increase in the building programme. That would be of the greatest assistance to recruiting.
I do not wish to detain the House further, but before sitting down I must say a little on a point which is more important than the transcendental question whether or not hikers shall hike, picnickers shall leave their paper about, or soldiers shall train in a particular area of Britain. It really resolves itself into the question: what is the Army for? At this time it is impossible to press that question too strongly, because of the present political international complications. I repeat—even if mine is the only voice in the House to do so, although I know others will agree, as they did with what I said on the last occasion—it must be obvious to anybody from recent events the tragic extent to which international relationships in Europe are rushing downhill, and the tragic resemblance which this period bears to the years before the last two wars. That must mean, sooner or later, a re-orientation of our military policy. I shall not press the right hon. Gentleman today to say what that re-orientation should be, but I make a most earnest appeal. I make it as one of the few hon. Members who like yourself, Mr. Speaker, were in this House before the two wars. I think I shall have the unanimous consent of my hon. Friends, together with that of certain hon. Members opposite, in saying that we must relate our commitments in foreign policy to strategic possibilities and our strength as a military Power. The fact that we did not do so at the commencement in either of the two last wars was at any rate one reason why those wars lasted so long.
I most sincerely hope—although I know I am verging on being out of Order when I am dealing with foreign policy—that after the Foreign Secretary returns from abroad, and when we have had the inevitable Debate, at least some hint will be given to the House, so far as it is proper to do so, into what commitments, if any, we have entered. There can be no party issue here. I sincerely hope that those commitments will not be of a character beyond our strategic power to carry out, for that is the essence of the whole situation so far as we are concerned. We certainly do not want to repeat the mistakes made in previous wars. I hope the Minister will be able

to give answers to some, if not all, of the questions that have been put to him.

7.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The noble Lord concluded his speech on a most interesting note. However, as he will understand, it is quite impossible for me to offer any observations on that matter. It is a question for the Government as a whole to consider in the light of all the circumstances, and there I leave that question.
In the course of this very interesting Debate I estimate that something like three score questions have been asked. That is certainly no exaggeration; indeed, it may be an under-estimate. Therefore, clearly it is quite impossible for me at this stage—nor would hon. Members opposite expect it—to reply in detail to every one of those questions. Indeed, there are some to which I would not care to reply, particularly those questions which relate to our national strategy.
In the course of a short speech I will not offer my views on why it is undesirable for me to enter into minute detail on that particular issue. I do not complain that hon. Members opposite, and my hon. Friends, have asked a great many questions. On Estimates of this character it is appropriate, and denotes—and I am very glad to observe it—a keen appreciation of the importance of the British Army; otherwise these questions would not have been asked. Hon. Members are entitled to be fully informed on what the Army is doing. I go further, and say that they are entitled to be so informed on the objectives of the British Army, in so far as it is possible to furnish information on that latter point in terms of security. However, there are other outstanding points which have emerged in the course of Debate. I hope that Members opposite will not regard it as discourteous on my part if I deal with what I consider to be the major points and not with the other matters which seem to me to be of less importance.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) made an interesting speech in the course of the Debate, as he did on the last occasion when the Army Estimates were before the House. He introduced the question of how much land the Army required for the purposes of training. The White Paper was mentioned. The White Paper contains a great deal of informa-


tion, and it was obvious that much of that information had been absorbed by the hon. Member for Twickenham, as apparently it was absorbed by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) and by other Members opposite. It occurred to me, listening intently to what was said by the hon. Members for Twickenham, West Aberdeen and South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes), that their speeches cancelled each other out.
The hon. Member for Twickenham advised me to take the soldiers to Scotland for the purposes of training, and he was encouraged in that by my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton, but the two Scottish Members who took part in the Debate had quite different views on the subject; they did not want me to take the troops to Scotland—the further away from Scotland I took them, the better they appeared to like it. I did not detect any desire that I should take the troops to Wales. As it happens, we occupy or propose to occupy, subject to public inquiry, consultations and the like, rather more land in Wales than in either England or Scotland, in proportion to the territory involved. What is the reason for this? Some of the reasons have been stated by the hon. Members for Twickenham and West Aberdeen.
The fact is that we have to concern ourselves in the future—I say this with qualifications—not so much with the Regular Army, as with the Territorial Army, which will be increasing in numbers, as I pointed out in my speech last week, until in 1954 we shall have a much larger Army of Regulars, National Service men and men in the Territorial Reserve than we have ever had in peace time. It is because of the Territorial content of the British Army which we envisage, which is provided for to some extent in these Estimates and in our general plan denoting the shape, pattern and future of the British Army, that we require extensive training facilities.
These Territorials, as has been quite rightly pointed out, must be trained as far as is practicable within easy reach of their homes. If it were merely a question of one annual camp, it would be a somewhat different matter, but even then,

it would involve considerable transport and expenditure, apart from the terrain and climate, which are factors that cannot be ignored. We have to envisage continuous training, with weekend training in particular, and the suggestion that we should take Territorials from Lancashire or from the Western counties, much less from the Southern counties, to the North of Scotland for the purposes of weekend training, which has to be continuous in character, is too ludicrous to justify any further argument. Hon. Members who have discussed this have, if I may say so, convicted themselves out of their own mouths.
I would point out at this stage what is the precise procedure which has to be adopted in connection with the acquisition of land for training purposes. It is all contained in the White Paper, as hon. Members know, but as some hon. Members may not have acquainted themselves with the procedure, I will direct their attention to the facts. On page 12, the procedure is laid down. There has to be regional consultation by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning with the local authorities concerned. Moreover, there has to be consideration of proposals by an Inter-Departmental Committee in the light of objections which may be expressed by any of the civil departments. Over and above that—and I would direct special attention to this—there are to be public local inquiries into proposals where objections have been made. The procedure relating to the acquisition of land for training purposes is so watertight that we are profoundly concerned—I must say this to hon. Members—as to whether we shall be able to acquire land within this procedure as easily as we desire it. I am now having to consider, in the light of this procedure, whether it is not necessary to ask for further powers. We have to face facts. I ventured to put this before the House on the previous occasion, but it bears repetition, and, to put it rather vulgarly, it ought to be "rubbed in."
We are to have an Army, as the House agrees, apart from one or two exceptions that do not matter a great deal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]. While recognising that these Members sincerely hold their views, they do not matter, because once the House has decided by a huge majority, that is an end to it for the time being. The House has decided


that we shall have an Army, and the country fortified us in that decision—there is no question about that. If we are to have an Army, we must see to it that it is trained in the most efficient fashion. We do not want a "half-baked" or half-trained Army, and if the Army is to be smaller in numbers, there is all the more reason why it should be highly trained and kept up to the highest pitch of efficiency. That, of course, is not a party matter. It is the sort of thing one expects sensible men to agree about. If that is so, we must acquire land in the most accessible spots, and we are trying to do so. On the other hand, we are anxious not to disturb agriculture; we are doing our very best not to do that. We are trying to meet every possible objection which is raised by agricultural interests and, over and above that, we are endeavouring to meet the views of all those people who, quite properly, are concerned about the disturbance of amenities.
I was asked about national parks, which is a matter, very largely, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning. It may be necessary for us to impinge on these preserves, but only to a limited extent. Our present plans do not contemplate our taking over more than 5 per cent, of the total area of the parks which are at present planned. That is not a high percentage. Even with that percentage we shall pay attention to the objections which may be raised by interested parties. We have discovered that there are reasonable people in the country, who are interested in this matter of the use of land for training purposes, who have expressed the view that we should not be inhibited in the use of land. I am sure the House will agree that we should proceed along the lines of the procedure laid down in the White Paper. I can give the assurance that the War Office will do nothing which can reasonably be regarded as objectionable to the interests concerned, and that we shall meet them in every possible way.
I leave that, and come to what some Members opposite regard as vital, the provision of full information, or, rather—I must not be unfair—fuller information. Indeed, that qualification to a very large extent provides the reason why I should not furnish more information than is contained in the Estimates. Hon. Members

must recognise that it is quite impossible, in the circumstances, to furnish detailed information. What would they say if I disclosed the disposition of our Forces in the Middle East?

Mr. Low: Everybody knows about it.

Mr. Shinwell: They do not. Some people may know about it, but it must not be assumed that because a statement appeared in the "New Statesman"—a very important and highly intellectual weekly periodical—on the subject of certain military formations and disposition of our Forces it was accurate in every particular. We read these paragraphs with interest, but we understand the position rather better ourselves. I say, frankly, that I am not prepared to come to the House, however much I am tempted, or if Members prefer it "provoked," and furnish information about the deployment of our Forces, particularly at this time.

Mr. Low: When a periodical of the importance of the "New Statesman" makes a statement like that, does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the effect that must have outside this country? Will he not add something to it, or say whether it is right or wrong?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not prepared to be caught with that very tempting bait. If the hon. Gentleman had the experience of this House and Parliamentary dialectics which I believe I have, he would not try it on. The fact is that it is quite impossible to furnish information of that kind, but there is another reason why I cannot produce fuller information about divisions, brigades, formations, and the like, which has been asked for by some Members. It is this: we are in the process of reorganising the whole of the Army because of the run-down of numbers. In that process there is bound to be—to use a term for the want of one more appropriate—some confusion. Not until we see the picture more clearly, after the run-down has run its course, so to speak, will it be possible for us to present a clearer picture to the House and the country of the actual numbers and formations of the British Army.

Earl Winterton: The Minister of Defence, in a recent speech, gave some information about battleships. Surely, if such information can be given about


another Service, we can have fuller information about the Army. My hon. Friend did not ask where divisions were disposed, but whether we could have any information as to what were our effective formations.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but there is no analogy between the presentation of certain figures about battleships and the furnishing of information about formations in the Army. As a matter of fact, we have given rather more information in the Estimates this year than we did last. The Estimates cover 21 more pages. It is true that four and a half of the pages are somewhat elementary in character, the sort of pabulum that is provided for raw recruits, relating to regiments, battalions and the like, but there are the other pages left, 21 more than last year.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: A waste of paper.

Mr. Shinwell: At any rate, something appears on the paper. I challenge hon. Members to deny what I have said. Members ought to be satisfied, but if they want more pages next year, and I have the opportunity—it is impossible to say in these fleeting and evanescent times—I shall give the matter favourable consideration.

Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider going half way by producing Vote A somewhat in the same shape as it was produced, not in 1938, but in 1939?

Mr. Shinwell: I will look into that. I am always willing to look into any point which any Member cares to raise. Something was said about the size of the Army, why we required more soldiers than before the war. Unfortunately, we have rather more commitments than we had then. That must be obvious to everybody. We have more commitments overseas but, in addition, we have a very vital commitment. Because of the National Service Act we must absorb into the Army every year a large number of men, who have to be trained. For that purpose, we must have Regulars, men who are trained, to act as instructors to the National Service men. There are commitments that we cannot ignore and set aside. Because of that we will require rather more men than before.
The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton raised another point concerning accommodation in Germany. I assure him that we do not requisition property in Hamburg, Berlin or any other part of the British zone without full consultation with the Control Commission. When I was in the British zone recently, I discovered that we are derequisitioning property very rapidly. The Army is well aware of public feeling in the British zone and is not anxious to create further difficulty. The bulk of the accommodation used by the Army in the British zone is barrack-room accommodation built before the war by Goering and others like him. It is very good accommodation, and I wish that we had as good in this country. So far as private property is concerned, we requisition it only when compelled to do so, and largely for the purpose of accommodating the wives and families of officers and other ranks. We have about 9,000 families in the British zone at the present time, and we must find accommodation for them.
I pass on to other questions which have been raised. The hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) raised several questions on the pay of the British Army. We cannot deal with that in the course of this Debate and, therefore, I will not say anything more about it. I am conscious, however, of the need, as I said in the Debate on the Army last week, for obsorbing into the Regular Forces a large number of men on the technical side. We have this very important matter under consideration. Whether it requires incentives in the form of higher remuneration or whether some alternative incentive is sufficient is a matter which will have to be considered. I am conscious of the difficulty. Then he asked that we should have a plan to cope with the volunteers who will be coming into the Territorial Army. I thought that I had explained the plan last week. We are hoping that the numbers will expand rapidly in the course of this year and certainly next year. We shall do everything possible to attract volunteers into the Territorial Army. As I have said on a previous occasion, without keen and enthusiastic volunteers we cannot produce the kind of Territorial Army which we believe to be necessary.
The hon. Member also suggested that we might have the Director of the Territorial Army on the Army Council. That is not an original idea. There was an Army Council several years ago of which


the Director of the Territorial Army was a member. He is not a member at the present time. There is, however, a very close connection. I beg the hon. Member to understand that. If it is any consolation to him, I can tell him that one of my chief preoccupations—I cannot emphasise this more than I am doing—is to endeavour to step-up the size of the Territorial Army and provide it with all the incentives necessary to produce the kind of Territorial Army we need.
Several questions were asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). He referred to the Gurkhas. I am sorry that I cannot give him more information than he was given last week. The matter is being looked into, and we shall take it up with the hon. Member as soon as possible. As regards the question of co-operation with the Royal Air Force, the presence of the Minister of Defence is sufficient answer. We are co-operating. The Minister of Defence is responsible for acquiring as much co-ordination as is practical, and these matters are considered from day to day. He also asked if we could do anything about the dress of the British Army. I wish that we could. I should like to put them into brand new uniforms, but we have not the material, and, if we had the material, we have not the labour, and there may even be financial difficulties. We must defer consideration of new dress for the British Army for some months ahead. As to the provision of the kilt, no one would welcome it more than I, but I am afraid that for the moment those who would like to wear the kilt will have to wear just ordinary pants like every other British soldier.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: Can the right hon. Gentleman stretch a point and give them rather better buttons instead of the things that look as if they ought to be on trousers instead of on tunics?

Mr. Shinwell: We started this Debate on a very high note, and now we have got down to buttons. Still, buttons are important, particularly when pants are under consideration, and a note will be taken of what the hon. Member has said. May I say that I thought that his speech was most interesting and stimulating, and many of the points which he raised will be considered. Finally, I must say to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth,

that if I have any complaint about the Debate it is because of something which he said about the dress of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. I regard his dress as most picturesque and attractive, and I am very proud of it. I can see nothing about his dress which would encourage any officer or any other rank to dress or appear in the streets in a slovenly fashion.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: All forms of fancy dress are picturesque and this is also a picturesque dress, but it is entirely outwith the regulations. Is it right for the private soldier and regimental soldier to comply with the regulations and for the Chief of the Imperial General Staff not to do so?

Mr. Shinwell: I shall have to look into the precise regulation. If the Chief of the Imperial General Staff is to be castigated, we shall do it in private. I have done everything possible to comply with the wishes of hon. Members in all quarters of the House and I have tried to answer their questions. I am conscious of the fact that many questions have not been answered, but the points have been noted, and I hope that at some time we shall be able to give satisfactory reports about them.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1948–49 [4th March]

VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE.

Resolution reported:
That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 325,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

7.50 p.m.

Mr. George Ward: The Debate on the Estimates which was held in this House on 4th March ranged over a very wide field. A great variety of subjects were raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House and a great many questions were asked. Clearly, the Under-


Secretary could not be expected to deal with all those questions in his winding up speech. However, it is fair to say that some of us on this side of the House felt that he did not answer at sufficient length, if indeed he answered at all, many of the points which obviously were most interesting and of the greatest concern to hon. Members. We feel, therefore, that the Under-Secretary may welcome this opportunity to expand a little, and to give us some more detailed information on a few of the more important issues which were raised, since he has now had time to study HANSARD and to give these points his careful consideration.
The outstanding point which was raised in that Debate and, indeed became the theme running through its length, was that of co-operation with the Dominions. This was mentioned by a great many speakers. There was complete unanimity amongst Members on both sides of the House that this cooperation with the Dominions should be developed as rapidly as possible, and that every step possible should be taken to make it close and as real. If I might briefly summarise the main points: first of all there was the need for a manpower policy as an integrated whole; there was the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Mr. Max Aitken) of an Empire Air Force and that advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) on the use of Dominion bases both for training flights and for defence strategy. The Under-Secretary will remember that on that occasion my right hon. Friend recommended the use of a globe rather than a Mercator map. There was the point in regard to the standardisation of equipment between ourselves and the Dominion Air Forces; and, finally, the dispersal of some of our aircraft industry throughout the Dominions in view of the extreme vulnerability of these islands. All these points are highly important.
We were very disappointed to find that the Under-Secretary, in his winding up speech, contented himself with saying, first of all, that we could not force the Dominions to do anything; and, secondly, deploring the use of the word "our" when speaking of the Dominions. I do not think anyone suggested that we could force the Dominions to do anything or that we had tried to force them. All

we were asking—and we were quite justified in doing so—was whether any discussion on air strategy as a whole had taken place or was taking place with the Dominions, and if so along what lines. As regards the use of the word "our" in talking of the Dominions, I am afraid I cannot understand the objection to it. We regard the British Commonwealth of Nations as a family of nations and see nothing whatever offensive or objectionable in talking about "our" family.
The Under-Secretary did say, however, that goodwill flights had taken place and that there had been some exchange of ideas in such things as tactics, rearmament and navigation. That does not meet the case at all. Our conception of the air defence of the British Commonwealth means, of course, something very much bigger, as the Under-Secretary well knows, and I hope he will take this opportunity of saying something more about all the suggestions and ideas put forward the last time we discussed this matter about the co-operation with the Empire. Let us have as much information as we can about what is happening. There was also the point raised about whether there is any progress towards some standardisation of types of aircraft and methods of training with France and the Benelux countries. If the idea of a Western Union is to succeed, one of the first things we must do is to establish a very close liaison with the countries concerned in matters of air defence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us what is happening there.
If I may turn for a moment to one or two matters of detail, the first point on which I should like to touch is the question of Reserve training apart from the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The Secretary of State in his opening speech last week said that there were over 1,000 pilots already in the Volunteer Reserve. When the ranks are swelled by the National Service men coming out at the end of their period of service with the Colours, there will be many more who must keep themselves in flying practice with the Volunteer Reserve. Yet we are told that there are to be only 20 Reserve flying schools. I suggested establishing more of these schools, and I got no answer. It is highly important, because at the moment there are more than 50 pupils per school, and everyone of them wants to keep himself in flying practice at week-


ends. It is not as if it were spread out; it is concentrated, and if 50 per school want to keep in practice under these conditions their quality of training cannot be very high. There must be far more of these schools, especially if we are to keep up the quality of training and the standard of practice which they require.
Perhaps also the Under-Secretary would tell us what types of aircraft these schools are equipped with, because that is important, too. I member during the short time I was on Reserve before the war I had to keep myself in flying practice by flying aircraft which had been obsolete for about To years. It was the only type with which these schools were equipped. Would he also tell us how many flying hours per year are now considered necessary to keep a man in flying practice? The days have gone when a few flying hours a year could keep him in practice, because flying has become increasingly a more complicated business, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary will appreciate that it is much more important now to keep oneself in practice in things like cockpit drill, link trainer, instrument flying, radio aids and so on. All these things must be done, quite apart from the mere handling of the aircraft, which was the thing one could do before the war, but which now is a comparatively minor part in keeping oneself in practice. Will he therefore tell us what provision is made for cockpit drill, instrument flying and so on in the Reserve schools?
These schools to which I am referring are operated by civilian companies. I hope that preference is given to the old established aircraft companies with long experience of operating training schools, and that the Air Ministry do not merely accept the lowest tender automatically. That is not the way to get quality.
Before the war there were two types of civilian flying training schools: those operated by old-established firms and new schools, which sprang up almost overnight in 1938–39 and in which the standard of flying training fell far short of that of the older establishments. I did three consecutive refresher courses, two of them with old-established firms and one with a new firm, and there was no comparison in methods of instruction. These things can be learned only by experience. I have been told that, owing to the policy of

accepting always the lowest tender, the old-established firms are not getting contracts and that the new firms are getting them. If the Government try to save money in that way it is a short-sighted policy. The R.A.F. supply the aircraft, and one crashed aircraft can cost more than the difference between the lowest tender and the tender put in by an old-established firm. I would therefore ask the Under-Secretary to give me an answer to this question: How many post-war schools are operated by companies with more than two years' experience of prewar school operation?
Now I turn to the A.T.C. I was pleased that the Secretary of State said in his speech the other day that only cadets from the A.T.C. would be accepted for pilot training under the National Service scheme. That is an excellent idea but it makes it all the more important for the best type of cadet to be encouraged to join the A.T.C., and to get the best type of officer. I assure the Under-Secretary of State that entry into both those branches of the Service are being made unnecessarily difficult. Acceptance of the best type of cadet is made difficult by the great shortage of facilities and accommodation for training. Next, only a small point, is that the A.T.C. officers feel that they have had a very raw deal. I asked the Under-Secretary of State the other day whether those officers Were entitled to wear the Defence Medal. They are not entitled to do so but they feel that they should. They believe that they did a very much better job than many people who are now entitled to wear that medal. They worked very hard and they feel that they have not been properly treated. If the Government would give consideration to this matter and allow them to wear the Defence Medal that decision would encourage recruiting in this branch of the Service and would put life and morale into the A.T.C.
On the subject of redundant airfields I would point out that when airfields are no longer required by the R.A.F. nothing seems to happen to them for a long time. In spite of the need today to grow more food, those airfields are often left empty and become covered with weeds and thistles. No one bothers about them for much too long. I do not know who is responsible, once an airfield is given up, for getting it put to some better use as


quickly as possible. This is a point well worth clearing up tonight.
We endorse the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State for the quality of the Air Force. He said that the emphasis was to be quality, and we wholeheartedly agree. I wish he would not talk about the third Air Force. It sounds rather like a B.B.C. programme. If we are to have a third Air Force or a fourth Air Force, it might become the fashion of the other Services to talk like that, until we got to a 568th Army. It is much better to regard the Royal Air Force as a continuous entity with its own traditions and its great, though short, history. If those traditions and qualities are maintained, we shall never quarrel about voting money. It is our first line of defence and we must see that the taxpayer gets value for his money. If our minds can be set at rest on the points about which we are not happy then this Debate will not have been in vain.

8.8 p.m.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) spoke about several things that interested me, although I am not in any way an expert in these matters. I have every sympathy with some of the things he said. He talked, for example, about the need for quality. I know that hon. Members on this side of the House are also enthusiastic about quality. He pointed out the expense entailed by a crashed aeroplane. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State tonight about an accident that occurred to an aeroplane.
Recently, on the Air Estimates, I brought up the question of a smash that took place at Hendon. I understood from the Minister than an official inquiry was being conducted. It is more than a month since the accident took place, causing a great deal of anxiety in the nearby neighbourhood. According to the evidence at the inquest, the accident was caused because a small plane was not able to rise over the objects around it. I pointed out that it was a miracle that the accident had not caused many more casualties than it did. I pleaded with my right hon. and learned Friend that the report of the inquiry should be made public or that one should, at any rate, have access to its recommendations and its findings. There is a feeling in the neighbourhood of Hendon airfield, which is almost entirely

surrounded by houses, that a similar accident may happen at almost any time. When the result of the official inquiry comes, we ought surely to be given some sort of guarantee that such an accident shall not recur. I therefore plead that the inquiry shall be speeded up.
The hon. Member for Worcester talked about redundant airfields with thistles growing on them. I can assure him that if only the Air Ministry would make Hendon redundant; there will be no thistles growing on it; there will be houses growing on it very speedily. Those houses are very badly needed. Hendon is desperately overcrowded. Like many places, Hendon has a very severe housing problem, and Hendon airfield, which is not a good airfield because it is too small and is now badly placed, would make an excellent housing estate. I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we would not allow a single thistle to rear its head if he would turn Hendon over to us. I ask that this shall be very seriously considered. I know that there are great difficulties. I know that it is necessary for the Auxiliary Air Force to train somewhere near London, but surely it should not train somewhere so near London if that place is not safe. I believe that the De Havilland school is at Enfield, which is much more out in the country and easily accessible. I plead that this matter shall be seriously considered and that Hendon airfield shall be handed over to the Hendon people.
Since there is so much disquietude and anxiety about the whole matter, I asked my right hon. and learned Friend if it would be possible for him to receive a deputation from Hendon on this question, to let us bring as a deputation the influence to bear which I as the North Hendon M.P. do not seem to have been able effectively to bring forward in this Chamber. I urge him to agree very speedily to receive a deputation to go into the whole question in the hope that he will give us some satisfaction.

8.14 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I admire the optimism of the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) about the housing programme at Hendon. I only wish it were the same in my division. However, I do not altogether disagree with what she said about Hendon. I know that airfield par-


ticularly well. Nevertheless, it is a most valuable airfield to the Royal Air Force, and must remain with them, as I understand that at the moment Hendon is accommodating auxiliary squadrons until they can be assured of an alternative airfield reasonably near London; otherwise they will not attract recruits in their leisure time. I see the difficulties of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Two fully equipped fighter squadrons are worth something these days when assessing the strength of the metropolitan Air Force, but I can see that as landing speeds of aircraft increase, it may not be possible to operate from Hendon. However, I ask the Minister not to be in a hurry to give up Hendon, but to exercise every care to ensure that all regulations are carried out and that the minimum of training of new pilots is done there, using it for the bare essentials of training for these fighter squadrons in the meantime.
We had a most interesting Debate on 4th March dealing with the Royal Air Force, but I was disappointed with the amount of information given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Under-Secretary because it is quite impossible for us to judge on what we were told and what was in the Memorandum whether the air component is satisfactory or not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that a back-bench hon. Member has great difficulty when he comes to size up whether the Air Force is sufficient for our requirements. In the month before the, war, in the 1939 Memorandum, very much more information was given. We were told that we had 1,750 front line aircraft. If we could be told that, when war was imminent, surely we could be told a little more on this occasion. In the Defence Debate on 1st March the Prime Minister said that he would undertake to look into the question whether more information could be given. Perhaps he has given that information to the Under-Secretary who will pass it on to the House this evening. On 4th March the Secretary of State said:
What, therefore, is the job of the Royal Air Force? … we must decide what kind of Air Force we need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 539.]
He did not tell us what was the strategic role of the Air Force or what its composition was to be. We were left guessing what was to happen in that respect.
There are two other things which concern me. The first is the actual strength of our fighter Air Force. I am much more concerned about the strength of our fighters at the moment, with the international situation as it is, than about the long range bombers. The last thing we want to see is this country caught in an unexpected attack by a potential enemy. We have said enough about that and I do not want to go over all the ground again. We know that the fighters which we have are good, but many of the auxiliary squadrons are still operating Spitfires which are now very much out-of-date. I hope that they will be re-equipped at a very early date. The right hon. and learned Gentleman or the Under-Secretary said this was being done. When are they being re-equipped? It is important that we should know when the fighter squadrons will all have jet aircraft.
We must know something about the strength of Fighter Command. The right hon. and learned Gentleman need not think that Soviet Russia does not know the strength of Fighter Command. Russia knows perfectly well. One has only to drive near the operational areodromes in the country on a fine day in order to count the aircraft lined up on the tarmac. If it is in Palestine, no doubt they have agents out there checking up. It is very easy to get out an order of battle and to know what the strength is, almost with its reserves. There is real concern in the country as to the strength of Fighter Command and fighters within the British Empire. I question very much whether we have a total of more than 300 or 400 fighters to defend this island—that is, which could be put in the air in an operational role. This House is entitled to know how we stand in these matters of defence. The situation in the world looks very ugly today and there is concern among the public, and we, as the representatives of our constituents, are entitled to know something. We do not ask for full details, but we ask to be given some information as to whether or not the situation is satisfactory. If it is not satisfactory, let us face up to it and put it right. That will do much more good in getting hon. Members' help in putting matters right, than creating a veil of secrecy—a policy which gets us nowhere.
The Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which I always think will play a great part in the defence of this country, is cheap to


operate and conditions should be made more attractive in order to get men into the squadrons. I should like to see the number of squadrons increased. The Auxiliary Air Force can use existing equipment, the personnel are not paid pensions and they need little housing accommodation, and it is a remarkably good investment for the Air Ministry to undertake. I suggest that airmen who devote their time to the Auxiliary Air Force for 24 hours should be paid the rate of the regular Air Force. The cost would be negligible. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to see what can be done to get more recruits. The pilots can easily be obtained but there is difficulty in getting the tradesmen who have to do the donkey work. Serving in the Auxiliary Air Force must be made attractive so that these men will give up their leisure time.
We would like to know what is being done between the current types of bomber, such as the Lincoln, and the stratospheric bombers. We may not have much time on our hands. It may be said that a modern bomber is in sight. I think it is a long way off. I think the modern bombers are years away. In spending this money, cannot we pay a token sum to America and get some B 29's, Super-Fortresses, so that at least we will have some American standard bombers with spares? I suggest that something should be done to improve the situation. It is pathetic that we should have to go on for several years operating the Lincoln. During the Debate last week I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the communications and radar installations were being maintained on a large network throughout the country. He said they were, but I have reason to believe that many are not being maintained, but are just rusting.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I do not think I said anything about it. I did not say that radar installations are being maintained throughout the country, because that would not be in accordance with the facts. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, however, that in the vital areas of the country they are being maintained.

Air-Commodore Harvey: That makes the situation a little clearer, although it is not as satisfactory as I thought. We have

to think in terms of the whole country, not just of the Essex coast and down to Dover. We have to see that they are maintained over a large area. Millions of pounds were spent on building up these installations. It would be a tragedy to see them rot and rust, and become useless if they were really wanted. We want to be able to use them for training personnel at weekends, or during the summer training period. The same goes for airfields. I fly occasionally and I find that runways are getting rather like the road between here and Buckingham Palace, a very rough road, and in frosty weather would deteriorate still more. We know that the runways were only built to last for a short period. Unless they are maintained and surfaced, they will cost much more, if they have to be used again.
I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will get his Chiefs of Staff and others to look into the question of giving something out of the funds towards operating flying clubs. Having sat on the Whitney Straight Committee on private flying, I know they are not very much welcomed, but I think that a mistaken point of view. It would be a very cheap investment for the Air Ministry to put something behind the flying clubs, in order to keep them going. If they do not do so, the clubs will die. They provide potential instructors, and create a tremendous amount of enthusiasm, and when the time comes they could provide pilots. I hope the hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen will look into that. I also hope that charter companies are being looked upon as a potential reserve of aircraft and aircrews. As one interested in a charter company, I know no approach has been made to us, yet we have several large and small aircraft, and I should expect that in time of emergency the Government would call upon us to play some role. There must be 200 or 300 charter aircraft which could be used in an emergency, and I hope this matter will be looked into to see whether these companies could play their part, should the need arise.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look into the question of senior officers. They are all very fine men, but all, practically without exception, have fought in two wars, and the Air Force is a young service. Men in their 30's, who have attained air rank, have proved themselves great commanders, and I believe


one or two served under my right hon. Friend in Middle East Command. They are given no encouragement to get the right type of command. We want them encouraged, and made into air-marshals. I do not think anyone should serve in the Air Force after they are a day over 50. That is the time to retire, or go into commercial flying, or something else.

8.25 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I wish to stress what has been said by some hon. Members, and also to call the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to what I said in the Debate on the Estimates. First, let me cross the t's and dot the i's of what the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) said in his further appeal to the Air Ministry to do something about flying clubs. Tonight we have heard that we want a flying reserve. If we are going to carry on air warfare and need to send people up in some kind of aircraft, whether bombers, fighters, or transport aircraft, we must have people used to the air. In the days before the war, when there was a certain number of fairly well-off people who could afford to have private aircraft, and to keep flying clubs going, a potential was kept in being. It was strengthened by some of the other clubs, where there was a vast membership quite prepared to watch some of the younger members spend their time in flying on Saturday afternoons in the two or three aircraft which the club possessed. We know that the people who got that flying experience formed one of the greatest assets our air arm had at the beginning of the war, and they probably saved us from disaster. Evidently we are going to be faced with a similar situation, should the need arise, in which there will be a quick expansion of the Air Force from the position in which it was left.
It is obvious to me, and became more and more obvious every day I sat on the Whitney Straight Committee, that we must have a reserve. One obvious place for it is in the A.T.C. It should be like the reserve which the Navy have. Their people go round the coasts in dinghies and pinnaces and a friend of mine was taken on the Thames by his father-in-law.

Air-Commodore Harvey: What about the petrol?

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: He brought the boat from Hamble and the whole family had a day out. That is how the Navy is kept going, and how we had the great potential of Dunkirk. The same applies to the Air Force, if we are to have an Air Force in the future similar to the past. I hope that the Air Force of the future will be something different. If we are to have a vast reserve of young men and women to take to the air, either for war purposes, or, as in Pakistan and in India, for peace purposes during the evacuation operations, the finest thing we can do is to see that young people and even children, are made conversant with the air, and link that up with the development of the Empire, so that we have this potential in being.
In our political work, going to our constituencies, and other constituencies, we notice by the main railway lines aerodrome after aerodrome which has become derelict. In the company of Mr. Deputy-Speaker I passed one today which was a very famous one. If ever its story is written, we shall see what wonderful work the Royal Air Force did there, in conjunction with the resistance movement throughout Europe before the great invasion. That aerodrome, as far as I could see, is absolutely derelict. Hon. Members will know which aerodrome I mean, although I suppose I cannot mention its name, as it will still be on the secret list. It is covered with thistles, and falling to pieces, as far as I know, and is very like a desert.

Mr. A. Henderson: The hon. and gallant Member can mention the aerodrome.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: It is Tempsford, which is alongside the L.N.E.R. section of British Railways. It may be that it should be derelict, but there are a lot of flying clubs in this country and when members of the Private Flying Committee asked about these aerodromes, we found that people were warned off. My brother was in the Army. He had charge of a dump near one of these aerodromes. When a person landed one day at the aerodrome an Army officer came up and said, "You cannot land here, go away at once." That was my brother carrying out orders. There was no harm in that man landing on that particular aerodrome. In fact, he was


doing a good job of work in the country. He was making use of grass-drying apparatus. There seems to be no general set of regulations governing the Army people on aerodromes which are not completely derelict.
While we have the finest collection of aerodromes in the world in this country, we are not making the fullest use of them for the development of civil aviation. I hope, if we are to have these aerodromes which are not used by the R.A.F., that whatever private owners are left, or whatever flying clubs manage to survive, will be allowed the use of them as a right, just as pedestrians are allowed the use of the streets of this country. We can all see these aerodromes. Any enemy agent need only take a railway ticket and travel round the country and count up all the aerodromes and see whether they are occupied or not. It is obvious that, if war were to break out in the near future—and certainly in the remote future—we should conduct the war, not so much with aircraft, as with missiles which would require to be sent from a missile platform, or some kind of base, such as the Germans must have used in North-West Germany, and in France, prior to the invasion. If that is so, there should be some evidence of these missile stations. In my peregrinations I have not seen any indication of such stations. Presumably, we shall carry on aerial warfare in the way the Germans taught us in the last two years of the war. Perhaps the answer is that the Air Force has nothing to do with such bases, but that it is a job for the Army. I do not know.
We can carry this matter of secrecy too far. Foreign military attaches and air attachés can read into statements and figures. They have their own contacts, and they know what is going on. During the war, in the intelligence department where I was, we got day-to-day information on the state of the German Air Force which was pretty well correct. Therefore, it is not too much to assume that the representatives of nations who may be potential enemies are kept pretty well informed as to what is going on. But we do not get that information, and we have not been given much information by the Minister. We can overdo this secrecy, with check-ups at R.A.F. stations and attempts to prevent people getting into the stations, and so on.

They seem very successful, until it is found out that a sergeant in the works department is taking a short cut through a hedge, rather than walking two and a half miles round the aerodrome, while we have been trying to keep out the enemy by locking the front gate. Hon. Members of this House should be let into secrets rather more than some gentlemen in a place like Prague, for instance.
I hope that we get some replies to the questions which have been put to the Minister tonight. In the last Debate there were a number of speakers, but the ground was not fully covered by him. We ought to be reassured that the R.A.F. is fighting fit, and that the many stories that we get from old comrades, still in the Service, to the effect that there is not much flying now, or that the morale of this or that station is not what it was, are not true, and that we have started in 1948 to build up an Air Force potentially as great as the Air Force we had from 1939 to 1945.

8.35 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: As every day passes, more than ever it becomes apparent that our Air Force should be prepared to face whatever difficulties may lie ahead. If that Air Force is to be efficient and properly equipped and manned to face whatever lies ahead, it is of the utmost importance that its personnel should be trained in the way the personnel were trained prior to the outbreak of the last war. Then, as we all know, quality was the keynote. It must be the keynote now. On the Air Estimates previously I stressed this point, and I asked a number of questions of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. The answers were not given to those questions. I hope that today I may have answers to the questions I asked then and to the questions I shall ask now on this very important matter.
The first point I wish to raise is in regard to the Air Training Corps. If the future quality of intake into the Royal Air Force is to be of the highest standard, what is being done to ensure that the Air Training Corps is so run at the present time that the young men in it will wish to continue to serve in the Royal Air Force itself? We have no means of knowing how satisfactory or otherwise is the state of the Air Training Corps at the present time. I asked how many cadets there


were in the Air Training Corps at the present time, and how the figure compared with recent years. I was given an answer to the first part of the question as to how many there were at present, but I was given no comparison with recent years. It is only on comparative figures that we can ascertain whether the Corps is advancing or going backwards.
I asked what was the length of service of the cadets at the present time, and how that compared with previous years. If a cadet is keen on his training, if the training is good, and if the leadership of his squadron is first class, we shall find cadets coming in at the earliest possible age and remaining in their squadrons as long as they possibly can. If, on the other hand, there is not that keenness and leadership which we hope does exist in the Air Training Corps, then cadets will remain in only a comparatively short time, so that length of service does give an indication of the standard of keenness and efficiency which the Corps has reached. I hope that, not only in the replies given tonight, but that in future Air Estimates, more information of this nature will be given. If our Air Force in the years to come, is to be of the quality needed, it is of the utmost importance that, right on the ground floor, there should be given proper training and encouragement.
I asked a number of questions about training, and in particular the aircrew training of the Royal Air Force, in view of the new developments to which the Secretary of State made reference in his speech on the Air Estimates. I asked what training was being done to prepare aircrews for the new jet-propelled fighters now in existence, and the new jet-propelled bombers intended in the future. Is the kind of preparation required to fly this aircraft the same as is required to fly older types, now obsolete, or is there any new method of training being developed? I think we should have some information at this stage. For example, I think it is true to say that, as a result of a conference held towards the end of the war at the Empire Flying School, certain recommendations were made. Are those recommendations for the improvement of training being implemented? If our aircrews of the future are to be of the best quality, then they must be given the very latest equipment such as is recommended by the

instructors who were gathered together from all over the Empire at the Central Flying Training School. The Prentice elementary trainer was produced to a specification which originated from that school in 1944. What is the position in regard to that aircraft? Are flying training schools equipped with it now, or are they to be equipped with it? I am sure that the House would like information on that point. For use in basic training, there is the Avro Athena and an unnamed Boulton and Paul aircraft. Both these aircraft were built to an Empire Central Flying Training School specification. I would like to know what progress has been made in their construction and whether they are to be used at a reasonably early date.
Also, I would ask whether there has been any change in the method of instruction. For example, is one instructor being used for all stages of a man's training or are several instructors used for the different stages? What is happening on the question of aircrew training? We are entitled to know some of these things. Are plans in existence for the same close co-operation which existed during the war between the countries of the Empire? I fear not. I hope that we may be given more specific assurances in this connection than were given us on the last occasion. Last week I also asked what action was being taken in connection with the Benelux countries. Are plans well advanced for a general co-ordination of training with those countries, and indeed with the Scandinavian countries? If the results of the Western Union are to be effective, then the first and most important task is that of co-ordinating and unifying air training with those countries in addition to the Empire and, to carry it a stage further, America. The House ought to be given information on that matter.
It is only right to stress that if we and our neighbours are to be properly prepared for the future, the present basis of security preparation is adequate and quality training. I hope that I may have answers to some of these points and to some of the questions which I asked earlier. I hope that information will be given on the question of training which will give confidence to the country, and that in future we shall have a great deal more information than we have had during the past year.

8.45 P.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I listened with great interest to hon. Members who have contributed to this Debate. During the Debate last week it was my fortune—or misfortune—to be tied down to the narrow terms of an Amendment connected with technical education. I esteemed the opportunity highly. I did my best, and hon. Members from both sides joined in that Debate. But, with exception of one hour on the subject of technical training, the whole of the evening seemed to be devoted to putting the wind up the nation. It was panic-mongering on the first scale. There was talk of the dispersal of the Royal Air Force to all parts of the British Empire. Apparently, only the common people were to remain here at home. "Disperse our factories," said one; "Disperse our air units," said another. The general tone was, "disperse anything connected with the Air Force, but the poor working people should remain here." The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) said that he did not want the nation to be caught unexpectedly. I am sure that every hon. Member shares that sentiment. Nobody wants this island to be caught unprepared.
I would remind the House, however, that the Battle of Britain was not won by the dispersal of the Air Force to scattered parts of the Empire. The defence of this island is our first concern: the defence of the Empire as such, is our second concern. It may be said that the defence of this island is impossible without the defence of the Empire.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the time of the Battle of Britain, and shortly afterwards, unless we had had an Empire Air Training scheme it would not have been possible to have trained the number of pilots necessary for the bomber force or, indeed, the number necessary for the maintenance of the fighter force? The building of aircraft in the Dominions was essential in order to keep the proper strength of aircraft in this country.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will not want to score a debating point on such a big issue as this. After the Battle of Britain it is true that there were many developments along the line which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Sir W. Wakefield: And prior to that.

Mr. Thomas: There were certain limited developments prior to that, but they were limited, as I am sure the House will remember. There is nothing to be gained in a Debate on the Air Estimates by our attempting to create an atmosphere suggesting that war is round the corner. If war is round the corner within the next five years we have "had it," because we are now the Belgium of the world. We are the small country between the big Powers, and we are wasting our time, our talent, and our money if we think that we can build up against atomic warfare within the next few years.
I prefer to turn the attention of my right hon. Friend to a more constructive suggestion of the way in which the Royal Air Force might be used. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) referred to the requirements of training for our pilots. The R.A.F. might well serve itself and fill a dire need in internal transport if it realised that the work done by Transport Command in Europe in 1945 might be done internally in this island in 1948. For instance, in Wales we have the largest Air Force station in the United Kingdom. We have the largest airfield in the United Kingdom, yet we are without any means of air communication between the different parts of the Principality. It takes me three times as long to travel from South Wales to North Wales as it takes from South Wales to London. It is fantastic that we should have a highly efficient force available, ticking over or marking time, as you will, while this great need exists on the part of our people. Surely, my right hon. Friend might realise that the Air Force could render a magnificent public service in the Principality if its fields were available, and if some of the larger planes could be adapted to the needs of passenger transport.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Free enterprise.

Mr. Thomas: Free enterprise broke down.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The Corporations have just cancelled their services to Liverpool, London and Manchester, because they are losing money. Why not allow free enterprise to do them?

Mr. Thomas: When we have a nationalised air service it seems silly to me—I


hope the House will forgive me following the point this far—that we should keep these planes idle when they could be used, or at any rate some could be used, for this service. There are large numbers of them standing idle, and they have been standing idle for many months, along the coast of South Wales. I believe it would be a good experience for the pilots and certainly an excellent service for our people if this were undertaken.

8.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): May I first take up the point made by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) in his plea for civil aviation to be taken over in this field by the Royal Air Force? I can assure my hon. Friend that if we were to attempt to do so, these Estimates would be far larger and the call on the skilled manpower of this country would be far heavier. May I remind him that when he was in Poland about 18 months ago the Royal Air Force Transport Command took him on part of his journey and he was kind enough to say how very comfortable and helpful it had been, and I pointed out to him that at that time the R.A.F. was being called upon to fill a gap in civil aviation and perform a civil function, but at what a cost? At the expense of delaying the release of certain skilled tradesmen in the R.A.F. It is not as easy to do as it is to say: "There is the R.A.F., there are the planes, there are the men, there is the largest station—run a service." I will not get into a debate as to the merits of civil aviation, whether public or private; that is a matter which has been argued many times in this House.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), asked for more information about our operational strength. I regret I can go no further than I did 10 days ago, except on one point; I can say that at the end of this year Fighter Command interception will be entirely by jet aircraft. There is, however, this fact to which I would draw the attention of these hon. Members: It is what was said by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) in the Defence Debate two weeks ago when he referred to the evidence that

the Estimates Committee had obtained as to the value to the enemy of the information given in the pre-war Estimates. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield used the words "the situation today is very ugly." I do not necessarily endorse that statement but I say that, surely, is the greatest justification for the attitude we have taken today. The Prime Minister has said he will look into what can be done in future in the Estimates, and I can carry the matter no further.
Mention has been made of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the possibility of making it more attractive. My right hon. and learned Friend is looking into that in all its aspects. He is also looking into the matter of helping the flying clubs which is another matter which has been raised more than once today.
I was asked a specific question as to whether there was anything between the Lincoln and the supersonic bomber. I can add nothing to what I said previously—that we have not sat back and waited for these new developments.
On the point of the Commonwealth, put by several hon. Members, I think it is fair to claim that in military aviation there is more Commonwealth co-operation than in any other field. Last year in the Estimates I was able to talk to this House of my experiences in Japan with the British Commonwealth Air Command—a closely integrated Command with components from the United Kingdom, Australia, India and New Zealand. I wish we could have more such experiments, for they are of great value in planning in peacetime the integration of independent forces. However, we must not underestimate what we have. We have, first, direct exchange of officers, and that covers officers from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We have, secondly, Dominion officers coming to our specialist schools, our radar school, our armament school, our navigation school, our land-air warfare school at Old Sarum, the Empire Flying School, the R.A.F. Staff College and other staff colleges, such as the I.D.C., not under the Air Ministry. These officers come from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
Thirdly, No. 24 Squadron of Transport Command, a four-engined squadron, is partly manned by Dominion aircrews. They come from Australia, South Africa


and New Zealand. The crew of the aircraft which took me to Malaya last year were, with the exception of one, all New Zealanders. Thus these men from the Dominions and from the United Kingdom get a wide experience travelling together up and down the Empire air routes. I must mention again the specialist aircraft—Thor, Mercury, Aries, Crusader—which travel about with specialist officers, giving instruction to the air forces of the Commonwealth. Last year we had these specialist aircraft in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and in the new Dominions of Pakistan and India. There is also excellent liaison in the fields of production and aeronautical research. I dealt as much as I could with the production point in the last Debate. On the research side we have the Commonwealth Aeronautical Research Council, and we have our leading scientists, Sir Henry Tizard and Sir Ben Lockspeiser travelling into all parts of the Commonwealth. It was reported in the papers this morning that Sir Ben had arrived in Australia for defence and scientific talks. Furthermore, we have exchanges of scientific workers in our research establishments. Lastly, we have joint research stations; for instance, the one about which there has been considerable publicity, the rocket range in Australia.
The hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) raised a particular point about the inquiry into the aircraft crash there. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State very much regrets that he cannot make a statement yet. The Commander-in-Chief of the Command concerned was overseas—he is Inspector-General of the Transport services among other things—and naturally my right hon. and learned Friend would not wish to come to any conclusion without considering his views The hon. Lady asked me to receive a deputation. If she believes that a deputation would assist us, of course I will receive one. I am always willing to do anything to help, provided it is consistent with maintaining the fighting efficiency of the Royal Air Force. We were able the other day to make an adjustment, by moving from near a city a squadron of reciprocating engine night fighters and moving on to its airfield a squadron of jet day fighters. The inhabitants preferred jet by day to recipro-

cation by night. We will always consider any arrangement like that, but of course the maintenance of the fighting efficiency of the Royal Air Force comes first. I would point out to the hon. Lady what, I am sure, she appreciates, although many people do not, that flying low is not necessarily "low flying" in the technical sense. Before landing or taking off there must, of course, be low flying.
The hon. Lady asked me if I was satisfied that the best use was being made of the land. I have no evidence that either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Town and Country Planning disagrees with the use of this land as an airfield. As to the use of land generally—and here I must pick up points made by several hon. Members about thistles and other weeds—I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture, given the premise that we must have large areas for airfields, believes we are not doing badly in making good use of our land. So many Members talked about thistles on the land that I began to think most of them must have spent the week-end in Scotland. There are two important factors to remember in this matter of land usage.
First, on an average two-fifths of a runwayed airfield is covered with concrete runways, buildings, and so on. Secondly, the productive use made of the land available for cultivation—I am sorry to pass the buck like this but it is a fact—depends upon the drive and efficiency of the county agricultural executive committees. Of the 200,000 acres which are not covered with concrete runways or buildings, 170,000 are available for grazing and grass growing; 23,000 are available for ploughing; and there are an odd 3,000 or so which are worked by volunteers—men and women from the Air Force stations—as unit gardens. The acreage cultivated in this way is nearly equal to the 1945 figure, when the Royal Air Force was about four times its present size, and the value of the produce this year is expected to amount to £150,000.
The Reserves were mentioned by more than one hon. Member. Of these 20 reserve flying schools, 14 are already going, and the other six we hope will get under way this summer. There was a particular point put to me by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) about contractors who now under-


take flying training for us. We entirely agree that the excellence of the old-established firms should not be overlooked in this connection. The question he asked was, how many of these contractors doing our flying training have had two years' prewar experience of it. I cannot answer that. However, I hope it will meet his point if I say that of the 17 contracts already placed, 16 are with firms which either trained for us before the war—though whether they did so for one or two years I do not know—or were in the E.F.T.S. scheme during the war. Only one of the firms is in any way a newcomer and there are special reasons for that contract. The firm was in possession of the most suitable airfield and was the lowest tenderer.
A point about the location of these flying schools was made. They have to be near well populated areas, otherwise with the overheads involved they are not worthwhile. Of the 14 we have set up already there is one, for instance, which we shall probably have to close because we made a miscalculation as to the number of people in that area who would undertake this volunteer reserve liability. The hon. Member in the last Debate referred to the fact that there was not one in Worcester. That is true. Our calculations did not lead us to believe that it would be profitable to have one in Worcester. So far we train only pilots, but in the next few months we shall start training navigators and signallers. For this we shall be using Ansons. At present it is Moths which we are using for the ordinary pilot training. As to the number of flying hours required, the minimum is twice as great as it was before the war. The synthetic equipment required on the ground is gradually being installed. The A.T.C. provides an extremely important form of pre-entry training.

Mr. Ward: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the Volunteer Reserve, may I remind him that the point I was trying to make was that if we have already got more than 1,000 pilots to be kept in flying practice, it means that there will be more than 50 at each school concentrating for weekend training. If some schools have to be closed down as being less profitable, I do not see how the men are to be trained.

Mr. de Freitas: I understand that in this reserve training where the men are very keen, they have been able to stagger their attendance for flying, and the result is that there is not that much overcrowding at the weekends. I can give the assurance that we are prepared at any time to expand a flying school most of which are not up to the maximum use that could be made of the airfield, if we find it is profitable to do so.

Sir W. Wakefield: To what extent are opportunities being given for synthetic training in many places other than airfields? Obviously, if people can go for an hour or two in the evenings for synthetic training, it is very important to make provision for them, and for that kind of training.

Mr. de Freitas: I entirely agree. That is the purpose of the reserve centres that we intend to have in the towns, as opposed to the airfields which may be several miles outside the towns. I should like to say that they are all operating, but in fact they are not all operating yet. We have had difficulties about accommodation.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that Moth aircraft are being used? Many of these thousand pilots are men who have fought in battle. Surely, they are not being trained with Moths which are nearly 20 years old? Surely they have modern aircraft?

Mr. de Freitas: I am afraid that there are nothing but Moths at this moment.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Deplorable.

Mr. de Freitas: It is the problem of maintenance that limits us. We could not assist these clubs to maintain anything more complex than Moths at this stage.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Pathetic.

Mr. de Freitas: I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is pathetic. We have to consider what has happened in the Royal Air Force. In the last 10 years we have multiplied its strength tenfold and have then divided it by four. Naturally, there are difficulties and problems arising in consequence, especially in bringing back a proper trade balance—and this prevents us maintaining additional aircraft.
The hon. Member for Marylebone brought up the subject of the A.T.C. He knows we have had a bad time. The latest figures for 1947 show that we are on the upward trend again, however. I regard the number of 42,000 as a good response, considering the boys now coming in are boys of 15 or so who, when the war ended, were about 12, and who, unlike their elder brothers, do not see on the horizon a service career of many years and of nothing but war ahead. I think it is a good response, although, of course, it is not good enough, and we have done everything we can to stimulate recruiting. As hon. Members well know proficient cadets get a guaranteed entry into the Royal Air Force; they get into the trade of their choice, provided it is one that may be undertaken by a N.S.A. entrant; they get less primary training in the R.A.F.; and there is also a scheme whereby we can fly proficient cadets acting as air quartermasters in Transport Command aircraft overseas, to India, Germany, and elsewhere.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are these A.T.C. boys being told that they are to be expected to bomb Russia?

Mr. de Freitas: No. These A.T.C. boys are doing a very good job, and it is all the more important that we should see that the accommodation provided is adequate and proper. We have reviewed this recently, and we found that 10 per cent. of the accommodation could not be described as satisfactory, either because of its nature or because of its tenure. I ask hon. Members who are connected with local Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations to do what they can to help us to find accommodation. It is not a thing which those sitting in the Air Ministry can do so well.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone asked what training pilots received before they went on the new jet propelled aircraft. Their training is on ordinary reciprocating engine type aircraft. I can assure the House that there is no fundamental distinction other than that involved in the speed of the aircraft. We tackle that problem by building them up from the Spitfire to the Vampire, or the Meteor III, and finally to the Meteor IV. We hope to be training with the Prentice towards the end of this year, and the system adopted will be "all-through" training.
Only ten days ago I spoke of the realisation among the men and women in the Air Force today that there had been a change in the attitude of this House and of public opinion towards them. I felt sure they would be encouraged that instead of our continually saying, "Look what they are costing us," we were now saying, "Let us see what protection we are getting for what they are costing us." As I explained ten days ago, I am sorry that I cannot give a yardstick so that all can judge what protection this money is providing for the nation. Since I spoke of this change in attitude, I have met a considerable number of men and women of the Royal Air Force, and I find they are heartened at once again being regarded, after nearly three years, as men and women working for the good of the community in the important and essential task of defending the country.

9.13 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I apologise for discussing one small point after the Under-Secretary has spoken. He rose sooner than I anticipated, and I missed the opportunity of speaking before him. Also, I hope he will accept my apologies for speaking on a question which is still the subject of correspondence.
The subject to which I wish to refer is the disclosure from R.A.F. records of medical information on personnel who have left the Royal Air Force. Recently a case has been the subject of correspondence with the Under-Secretary, where, for the sake of the man concerned, the medical adviser of his recognised trade union, with the man's consent, raised the question whether this information should be disclosed confidentially, with any restrictions the Minister cares to impose to prevent its abuse, in order that the man's claim can be fought in another direction. Sometimes Service Departments, including the Royal Air Force, give information to other Government Departments which are opposing claims for appointment or preferment, and the men may be prevented from obtaining that employment. Yet the trades unions who ask for such information confidentially under restrictions, who are willing to pledge themselves never to abuse the disclosure of the medical record of any man, are refused such information.
Twenty-five years ago, it took us three or four years to win this fight with one Government Department. That concession was made, and for the last 25 years has worked admirably in the interchange of medical information between medical officers of the Department and of the trade union concerned. I ask that the R.A.F. should review this question, and see whether a way cannot be found by which such information, which may be essential to the man in presenting his case—sometimes with another Government Department which has already had the information and perhaps arrived at a wrong diagnosis—cannot be given the man to enable him to fight his case and to get justice in any future claim in which he may be involved.
It is a difficult question. The Government, of course, always answer that if they disclose the information to one person they will have to disclose it to insurance companies, to private profit making concerns, for purposes which may not be considered legitimate by the Government Department. But the Department can impose restrictions on the disclosure of such confidential information, which will ensure that such disclosure is not abused, while at the same time giving the man the opportunity of being on equal terms with the Service Department. I hope the Under-Secretary will say that he will review this case again. I do not want him to answer the point tonight, because I know he has had short notice. But I wish he would consider it and later on give a favourable answer to the request put forward on behalf of the trade union.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I cannot be expected to agree to the passing of these Estimates without a protest, after the answer made to the Debate by the Under-Secretary, and after his failure to answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). He asked two vital questions. Surely, if young intelligent boys from secondary schools, or academies in Scotland, are asked to rally to the A.T.C. they must be told what they are to fight for. I confess, hon. Members of the Opposition seem to know precisely what the position is, and during Committee one hon. Member elaborated a theory that we

must have a striking force to attack the enemy potential behind the "iron curtain" That means, to be quite frank —and I wish the Under-Secretary had been frank—that this expenditure for the Royal Air Force is intended for one purpose only, namely, war with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

Sir W. Wakefield: If we are attacked.

Mr. Hughes: I presume that if nobody is going to attack there will be no expenditure on either side. I do not believe that anybody has produced any evidence to show that the Russian air force intends to attack us. I suppose the merits or otherwise of the Estimates can be argued on those lines. I protest against being called upon to vote a sum of £194,396,000 at a time of economic crisis. We seem to be living in watertight compartments. We have a "Black Paper" on Economic prices one day, and then, forgetting all about that, we are asked to agree to the Army and Air Force Estimates. I object very strongly at a time when basic petrol is such a burning question that we should be called upon to agree to £6,690,000 for the purpose of supplying the Air Force with petrol when, according to the Under-Secretary, the Air Force is able to rehearse only with "Moths" which are inadequate for the present emergency.
We are told that we are to disperse our aircraft all over the Empire and that we are to build aeroplanes in Winnipeg and to make our bases in central Africa. What is to become of the people in the industrial areas who have to bear the attack of the atomic bomb. I say that we are not justified in passing these Estimates and that this is a betrayal of humanity. I hope that we shall never see these Estimates carried to their logical conclusion. If Members generally asserted themselves and were realistic, they would fight these Estimates line by line and refuse to grant the money that is now being asked for.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. John Dugdale, Mr. John Freeman, Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas and Mr. Michael Stewart.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

"to provide, during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force, "presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed." [Bill 59.]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1948–49 [4th March]

Resolutions reported:

PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE

"That a sum, not exceeding £51,700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949."

AIRCRAFT AND STORES

"That a sum not exceeding £48,000,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949."

WORKS AND LANDS

"That a sum, not exceeding £23,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949."

NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £2,650,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949."

CIVIL ESTIMATES [11th March]

Resolutions reported:

CLASS X

MINISTRY OF FOOD

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £142,328,498 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services including certain subsidies; and sundry other services."

CLASS II

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS, ETC.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,310,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course

of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

UNITED NATIONS

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £74,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for a contribution towards the expenses of the United Nations."

INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ORGANISATION

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,240,625, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for a contribution towards the expenses of the International Refugee Organisation."

Resolution reported,

ASSISTANCE TO GREECE

"That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for a contribution to the cost of the Greek Armed Forces."

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. G. Thomas: I little thought that in the middle of a crisis such as we are facing on economic matters the House would be asked to make a further contribution towards the police state of Greece. Whatever may be our views about what is happening in Greece, no one, I think, is likely to suggest that the present reigning power is a democratic force. We find that secret arrest is legal and that newspapers which are not favourable to the Government have been suppressed. In short, we find all the ugly features which we condemn in other parts of Europe reflected there in full glory. It is monstrous for the Government to ask the House to grant another £2 million to support that tyrannical form of Government——

Sir W. Wakefield: Rubbish.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member may be an expert on rubbish. Perhaps he will allow me to continue and then make his own contribution of rubbish. I notice a growing tendency for hon. Members


opposite to try to shout down anyone who says something they do not like. Freedom of speech is only menaced outside this House. I cannot remain silent on this issue. Things are happening which are a disgrace to humanity.

Mr. Blackburn: By your friend Markos.

Mr. Thomas: I would quote the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who on 14th March last year said in this House that there are things happening in Greece today which His Majesty's Government could never condone. [Interruption.] If hon. Members read the Debate which took place on 14th March last year they will find that the right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to defend what was happening in Greece. I am not suggesting that those who are on the Left in Greece are all full of virtues and those on the Right are all full of vices. I am suggesting that it is wrong for this House to lend the good name of this country to supporting a regime which is opposed in my opinion to the very things for which we have stood through the long centuries of our history.

It being half past Nine o'Clock MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution ordered to be reported by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution."

[For details of the remaining Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1948; Vol. 448, C. 1542–1550.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1948–49

Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £74,476,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.

put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1948–49

Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £159,774,000, be granted to his Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment

during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services.
put, and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1947–48

Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £78,462,478, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for expenditure in respect of Supplementary Estimates.
put, and agreed to.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1947–48

Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.
put, and agreed to.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1947–48

Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.
put, and agreed to.

CIVIL (EXCESSES), 1946–47

Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £11,422 19s. 5d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1947.
put, and agreed to.

NAVY (EXCESS), 1946–47

Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £7,655,466 2s., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for Navy Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1947.
put, and agreed to.

AIR (EXCESS), 1946–47

Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for Air Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1947.
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — [SUPPLY] [23rd February]

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES

CLASS II

India and Burma Services

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Burma and certain salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, including the salary of the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations; and for sundry India and Burma services, including compensation payments and other expenses arising out of the setting up of the independent Dominions of India and Pakistan and the grant of independence to Burma, certain expenses in the Persian Gulf and certain grants in aid."

CLASS IV

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,781,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [11th March]

Resolutions reported:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, the sum of £7,666,899 1s. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, the sum of £245,197,121 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, the sum of £1,058,174,000 be granted out of the the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Glenvil Hall.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, and the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 60].

Orders of the Day — PALESTINE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 10th March].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the termination of His Majesty's jurisdiction in Palestine, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums which are so payable under any enactment relating to superannuation.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Before we pass this Resolution we ought to have some explanation from the Financial Secretary of the manner in which these funds are intended to be applied, and some indication of the total sum likely to be involved. If one looks at the Palestine Bill one sees that it contains no indication of what is proposed to be done with the money. It merely provides, in Clause 3, that
His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision—
(b) for applying any enactment relating to supervision, …
I think that the Committee is entitled to know before passing from this Resolution what sum or approximate sum is intended to be used for the purpose of supplementing the superannuation under any existing enactment, and, if the right hon. Gentleman can give it, some indication of the manner in which that sum will be expended. At the present moment, although we have had the Second Reading of the Palestine Bill, there is nothing to indicate the manner in which the sum which this Committee is now being asked


to vote by the Money Resolution will be applied.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I think that I can satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman without much trouble. Clause 3 (4b) is the only Clause under which any charge might be imposed on the Exchequer under this Bill. I am sorry that I am unable to tell the House what charge may be raised under this Resolution in connection with the Bill when it becomes an Act, but we hope that it will not be a great deal. As the Committee will know, under the Bill officers serving in Palestine will cease to occupy those offices on and from 15th May, and it may well be that some of them will go to other services, possibly the Colonial Service.
Under some of the Superannuation Acts, unless there is continuity of service that period cannot count for a gratuity. All we visualise is that if any of the officers do go on and, for example, become governors, we shall be able by Order in Council to say that continuity of service is reserved to those officials. I am positive that that object will commend itself to right hon. and hon. Members opposite as much as it does to my hon. Friends behind me. That is the only possible expenditure that we visualise under this Resolution. I hope that, with that brief explanation, the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee will let us have the Money Resolution.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but it is clear—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that there is, in fact, under this Resolution no limit to the money which can be applied to this purpose. He says he hopes that the money involved will not be a great deal. We on this side of the Committee hope that it will be possible to find those whose employment terminates on 15th May, satisfactory employment in a short period of time. At the same time, we should be satisfied to know—although I do not think we can get it tonight—that ample provision is being made for those who suffer a long interval of unemployment and also for those for whom it will not be possible to find other employment. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said there is no need to spend more time in discussing this Financial Resolution.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COTTON INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

9.42 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move,
That the Draft Order entitled the Cotton Industry Development Council Order, 1948, proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, a copy of which Draft Order was presented on 27th February, be approved.
This order is the first to be made under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act which was passed last year. This establishes a development council which is to be known as the Cotton Board, 1948, and will replace the existing Cotton Board and continue and broaden its work. The object in creating development councils was summed up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Third Reading Debate on the Bill in this House in these terms:
The object is to get one responsible body of persons who can speak for all interests in the industry with a single voice and who, in their consideration on the interests of the industry, will have in mind as well, the interests of the nation and of the consumers of the industry's products. It is the intention of the Government to give great weight to the recommendations of these bodies when they are set up, and to use them in a large degree for that liaison with industry which is now such an essential part of any national planning or the execution of any plan which is made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1947; Vol. 438, C. 90–91.]
The present Cotton Board was set up in March, 1940, under the Cotton Industry Act of that year. The main and immediate reason for requiring a body of that kind was the need for the expansion in exports at that stage of the war. This Board was set up to perform certain central services on behalf of the industry, principally but not entirely in connection with exports. Soon it came to be relied on as a channel of communication between the Government and the industry in both directions. It performed a vital service in interpreting the needs and objectives of Government policy to industry, and also the needs and views of the industry to the Government. In my opinion, it has played an even greater part in the difficult years since the end


of the war, particularly in connection with its task of unwinding the effect of the concentration scheme. It has represented a most valuable, single, focusing point for all policies and projects connected with the cotton industry. It has brought about a spirit of co-operation and unity among very diverse and sectional interests in this industry such as never existed before the Board was set up.
Students of public administration might go further and say that in the Cotton Board we have an entirely new conception in the relationship of government to industry, which, avoiding the dangers of syndicalism, has provided a body which can speak for the industry and which, at the same time, provides much-needed leadership for the industry. Anyone who knows the industry would wish me to pay tribute tonight to the Board and particularly to its Chairman, Sir Raymond Streat, for their industrial statesmanship over the most difficult period since the Board was established.
I am going into details on this matter, because our main purpose in the order is to continue the existing functions of the Board. Its main functions have included its work in connection with the direction of exports scheme, its work on the utility cloth scheme during the war and on concentration and since the end of the war the winding up of concentration. The Board have undertaken many other most useful functions. It has set up the Colour, Style and Design Centre, operated the recruitment and training department, and, in the field of research in addition to its own economic and statistical work, it has given strong assistance to the Shirley Institute. It has undertaken experimental work on the more scientific and economic use of manpower and machinery, which was sorely needed in this industry. At the present time it is doing much of the work on behalf of the Board of Trade on the re-equipment scheme which will come into full operation when the Bill at present before the House becomes an Act.
Under the order we envisage the work of this new Cotton Board going on as before, but strengthened. The members will be appointed by the Board of Trade and will be II in number. On the employers' side there will be one representative of the spinners and doublers, one of the weavers, one of the finishers, and one of the converters. On the workers'

side there will be two representatives of spinning and doubling operatives, one of weaving operatives and one of finishing operatives. In addition, there will be three independent persons who have no financial or industrial interest in the industry.

Colonel Dower: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an indication of their qualifications?

Mr. Wilson: I will say a word about that point in a moment. Obviously, as was envisaged under the Act, we have very much in mind that they will represent the interests of the consumers and of the nation as a whole. They will be there to see that there is no danger—I hope there will not be any danger—of the two sides of the industry ganging up in a purely sectional way. They will see that the interests of the nation and of the consumers are brought to the fore. That is a partial answer to the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I do not envisage any change in the chairmanship of the Board. Sir Raymond Streat, I am glad to say, has agreed to accept my nomination of him as Chairman of the new Board. I have not yet settled upon the other two independent members. In anticipation of the approval by Parliament of this order, the chief industrial organisations have been asked by me to suggest names to be considered for appointment as industrial members.
The first function given to the Board will be that of registration of the productive units in the industry. That function has not been undertaken by the old Cotton Board. Secondly, there is the function of finance. The House will probably want to know the financial details fairly fully. The income will be derived mainly from a levy on spinners. Their individual liability for payment will be determined by reference to the average number of spindles in use for spinning cotton, including cotton waste, and mixture yarns containing 50 per cent. or more by weight of cotton. This method of assessing the levy has been adopted rather than the one we have had so far, of the total quantity of raw cotton purchased. We have had representations from the existing Board that the new method will be fairer in its incidence.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Why is the levy made upon the spinning section only so far as machinery is concerned, and not on the weaving section or on rayon operations, apart from the £1 per head?

Mr. Wilson: The main reason for that is that it would be extremely difficult to get an equitable basis for all the different and diverse types of establishments in weaving, and, more particularly, in finishing. It was felt, quite rightly, that if we had the levy at an early stage in the industry, it would be successively passed on to the later stages. As my hon. Friend knows it was previously based on the raw cotton at an early stage and because of the unfairness of that we felt it right to base it on the spinning section, knowing that it would be passed on in the finishe price. The rate of levy is to be determined by the Board and that will fall to be approved by the Board of Trade, but the order requires that it shall be so fixed as not to exceed £250,000 a year. That roughly corresponds with the figure raised by the old Board, the total fluctuating with raw cotton consumption between a minimum of £145,000 and a maximum of £290,000.
The next power given to the Board under the order is to obtain information and statistics. The House would wish to be assured that there is specific provision for the maintenance of secrecy about the financial position and other economic statistics of individual undertakings and processes. The functions are set out in some detail under the second schedule of the order. They follow the list of functions set out in a schedule to the main Act and in the main continue the present functions of the Board. It distinguishes between functions which are exercised in relation to the industry as a whole, that is, covering problems connected with the interlocking of the rayon and cotton industries, and those exercised for the cotton section proper. There is a very wide range of functions and obviously I could not go into it in any detail, but I know that my hon. Friends and a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be particularly interested in the welfare functions which are given to the Board.
In this connection I hope it will be possible for Lancashire to consider, under the levy arrangements, the provision of come kind of central welfare fund, per-

haps on the model of the Miners' Welfare Fund of the past, to finance approved schemes for welfare and amenities. There is, of course, a limit to what can be done at the present time in the provision of amenities and especially on the building side, because of difficulties of materials, but my hon. Friends know to what extent deficiencies in the matter of welfare are hampering us in our recruitment drive, and even though there is a limit at the present time to what can be done in improving these welfare facilities, it would provide a real assurance to those now in the industry and those we are asking to come into it if there were a fund of this kind which could be expended under some kind of central guidance to repair the big gaps in the welfare provisions of the industry which existed for far too long before the late war.
There is a point in the order about the definition of the industry. This is set out in paragraph 1 of the first schedule. I do not need to go into it in detail. It is largely based on the definition of the industry compiled for the purposes of the Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Act, 1939, and used in the Cotton Industry Act, 1940. Broadly, it covers the spinning and doubling of yarn from cotton and staple rayon fibre, the weaving, finishing and making-up and packing of fabrics made from such yarn and from continuous filament rayon thread, and the activities of the merchant convertors.
The order is due to come into force on 1st April, and, in accordance with Section 8 of the Act, provision will be made for the position to be reviewed by the Board of Trade in consultation with the new Cotton Board and with organisations representative of employers and workers in the industry some time before 1st April, 1951.
Before I sit down, the House will expect me to say something about the consultations which we have undertaken in and around the industry before placing the order before the House. Section I (3) of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act requires that before making a development council order, the Board of Trade shall consult the appropriate trade associations and trade unions. On the Committee stage of the Bill we were very much pressed to make available to the House, as each Order came up, the broad results, and the detailed results, of each


individual set of consultations. My hon. Friend the Paymaster-General gave an undertaking that we would do so.
Apart from consultation with the existing Cotton Board, which has been very close, and practically continuous, the consultations which have taken place on this order have been divided historically into two parts. First of all, we drew up a preliminary draft in collaboration with the Cotton Board. We circulated it to all the principal associations and trade unions in the industry, and I am glad to say that our proposals were unanimously welcomed and approved by both sides. Whatever comments we had from them were on points of detail and machinery only. Then we discussed proposals with them at a series of meetings held in Manchester last November, and made a number of amendments to the draft as a result.
I do not think the House would want full details of the consultations, but the consultations principally referred to the question of representation, the number of sections not now included in the order, and then the method of the levy was a matter of some discussion. I think we have managed to satisfy the large majority of associations on that. There were certain questions of the definition of the industry, particularly on problems affecting the margin where the cotton industry passes into the wool and rayon industries. In fact 17 trade associations and trade unions were fully consulted—I can give hon. Members further details if they want them—and no important point of substance has been left outstanding. We can claim to have produced an order acceptable in all its basic principles, and almost every point of detail, to everybody concerned in the industry.
I do not think it is necessary to stress the importance of this order in the long history of this sometimes unhappy industry. The cotton industry and its problems are obviously a matter of the highest national importance. I think every hon. Member in last Friday's Debate stressed the importance of the cotton industry at the present time, and outlined their views on what ought to be done to bring it back into a state in which it can play the full part which the nation expects at this time. The meeting we had on Saturday with hon. Members representing cotton Divisions, and with leaders of the Indus-

try, again brought this point home in fullest detail, and the Prime Minister's invitation to the leaders of both sides of the industry to meet him next week at 10, Downing Street, gives some idea of the importance we attach to the industry at this stage.
This order providing that the central body should exercise many of the functions which hon. Members want to see exercised will be of very great importance in the future development of the industry. In this House we are all concerned about Lancashire's future, not only those of us who are in any way connected with the Lancashire cotton industry, or with Lancashire constituencies, but everyone concerned with the development of our export trade and the production of the essential articles which Lancashire produces for civilian use. Everyone knows that the past of this industry has not always been as happy as it might have been, particularly in the inter-war periods. At various times we have blamed the industry for the troubles in that period. For, my part, I would be prepared to take a somewhat more charitable view of Lancashire's troubles in the inter-war period, and subscribe to a very important conclusion in the working party's Report in -which they say that Lancashire's troubles in the inter-war period:
were due mainly to the tremendous contraction forced upon the industry by external developments quite beyond its own control. The primary cause of its loss of export trade was not its own 'inefficiency,' though the effects of this loss and the conditions which it created have militated against maintenance of progressive efficiency.
The problems were contracted world markets, especially due to tariff barriers, causing the loss of the United States market, developments of home industries abroad which caused the loss of the Indian market, and the fierce onslaught from Japan with its "rice" standard of wages and nationalistic economy. The working party, commenting on this, did make criticisms of Lancashire which, I think, are relevant in connection with the order for the approval of which I am asking the House tonight.
The first thing the working party said, and this has a very stern lesson for us today, is that the industry squandered the temporary prosperity which it enjoyed after 1918. In my view, this is the most serious charge against the industry. That was the period when London finance got


into Lancashire and floated prosperous and fairly efficient private concerns as public companies at three or four times their real worth. That is a thing which hon. Members on both sides of the House would condemn in the history of the industry. It was a case of the girl who took the wrong turning and met a slick suitor from the city. She did it only once, but has regretted it ever since, and she has been paying the price ever since.
The second charge which is made, and which has relevance to this order, is that the adjustment to new conditions has been painfully slow, and it was still uncompleted when the 1939 war came. The working party sums it up that the charge is not so much against the cotton industry as the national policy.
The cotton industry itself could not have found employment for its surplus labour. But, if there had been a wise collaboration between the organising power of the State and the initiative of a vigorous industry, results might have been very different.
I hope that the House will agree that this order goes a long way to creating the conditions for valuable and continuing consultation between the Government and a vigorous industry and creates conditions in which we may hope that the future of this industry will be very different from its most recent past.

10.2 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Until three-quarters of the way through the speech of the President of the Board of Trade I thought that, for once, we were going to have something from him which would not mix his functions with party politics. I am very sorry that he descended in the last part of his speech to a statement which vitiated most, of the arguments of his own party, and certainly the argument which he addressed to the House earlier. The President of the Board of Trade has said that this Order is of vital importance to the cotton industry. I agree with him, but I would ask why it has been necessary to draw it in quite such wide terms. He has said, and hon. Members on this side of the House will agree, that it is necessary to give considerable scope to this new Clause. I would refer hon. Members to paragraph 1 (2) of the order:
The Board shall exercise their functions in such manner as appears to them to increase

efficiency and productivity in the industry as much as possible, to improve and develop the service that it renders to the community and to enable it to render that service more economically. …
I do not think any hon. Member will object to any of those objects. If we go a little further in this, order I think there are a good many things about which the President of the Board of Trade has not offered any explanation. I would refer him to the next paragraph:
The Board may enter into such agreement, acquire such property and do such things, as may in the opinion of the Board be necessary. …
That seems to be a paragraph so wide that it enables the Board to do anything it likes. To take one example, there is nothing to stop it from buying a property out of its own funds and passing it on to the Coal Board for their use, at half the price which was paid for it. They can acquire a mill, stop it functioning and then hand it over to the Transport Commission at a quarter of the price which was paid for it, in order to make buses. The paragraph means that this Board can use whatever moneys we give it, and whatever is given it by the Act mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade, to bolster up another national board to pursue any function that the Government may wish without any reference whatever to this House. We would be very rash to pass a paragraph of this nature without some further information from the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary.
I wish to ask a few questions about the independent members. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was glad that the present chairman of the Cotton Board would continue in office. I ask him to look at paragraph 3 (b) of the Third Schedule. It appears to me that we are running a grave risk if we pass this Order in its present form. I am fully prepared to believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House want these independent members to be truly independent, but hon. Members will see that the Board of Trade retains complete power to dictate to any independent member the terms on which he can continue to be an independent member of the Board. It is provided that if the member refuses to conform to what the Board of Trade says, then he may be dismissed from the Board as an independent member. That is a most dangerous provision to make in an order


of this sort. I would like to know what is meant by paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule which states that certain salaries will be payable. On what basis are those salaries to be paid, what is the total envisaged and how will the qualifications of the members affect the salaries to be paid?
Paragraph 4 (6) states that any person engaged in the cotton industry may receive a notice from the Board of Trade which will state that in the opinion of the Board of Trade they are no longer members of the industry. If the firm does not lodge a protest within a month, the ruling of the Board of Trade will be confirmed and that firm will be crossed off the list of people engaged in the industry. I cannot see what will happen if the firm contradicts the ruling of the Board of Trade. Will there be any arbitration to decide which of the two is right, or is the decision of the Board of Trade final? If so, on what is it based? As that paragraph stands it is a most dangerous precedent, because it provides that any firm can be ruled out of the cotton industry on a notice of the Board of Trade from which there is no appeal.
I also wish to ask some questions on the subject of finance. Tucked away in a proviso to paragraph 6 (2) there is a statement:
Provided that any charge or charges imposed in respect of any such period … shall be computed so as not to yield in the aggregate more than two hundred and fifty thousand pounds …
I would like to know how that figure is arrived at. Why does the Board want £250,000 under that proviso? It seems to be a very large sum and I would like to know a little more about it. I noticed with regret that, throughout, the President of the Board of Trade did not give us any details about the finances of this Board. I would like also to ask, in relation to paragraph 6 (2, d) and paragraph 7 of this Order, why borrowing powers are wanted. If they are allowed to raise these charges, why do they want borrowing powers as well? I would like to hear some indication as to what all this money is going to do.
I myself, and hon. Members on this side, welcome any order of the general description made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I feel rather doubtful that so many extra powers are contained in

the order, that finance seems to be so vague, and that the provisions of the independent membership, which as the President of the Board of Trade said himself, is the safeguard of the consumers, are made so entirely dependent on the President's thoughts, and, indeed, actions. I hope, therefore, that before we dispose of this order we may have a little more information.

10.11 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I would like to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on this very fine piece of work. Anyone who knows the cotton industry of Lancashire will welcome the pronouncement he has made tonight, especially in view of the fact that he told us that this is the result of agreement made by both sides of the industry.
I want particularly to congratulate him on the projected appointment of the Cotton Welfare Board, because if anything ever was needed in the industry it was a Board of this description. I hope the term welfare will be extended to include health provisions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, many of the mills in Lancashire are really of a backward age and need considerable improvement from the point of view of the health of the workers in the industry. Many of the conditions in the industry, so far as health is concerned, can be greatly improved—for example, by attending to the treatment of mineral oil, in the oiling of machinery, from a purification point of view, to deal with cancerous cases in the industry. That does not seem such a pettifogging point as may be thought on the other side. [Interruption.] I do not want to be provocative—not at all.
I want to congratulate our Minister on doing this very fine piece of work, which should have been done 30 years ago. On an occasion like this we should feel it appropriate that our Government—at a time when we are making a stand for increased production in the industry, not only because of the export trade alone but, I hope, from the point of view of the stability of the industry—should come forward and give us an order, not only on the production side but on the welfare and health side, which is of permanent benefit to the workers. I want the President of the Board of Trade to know that we are very proud, indeed, of tonight's work and of the pronouncement


he has made, and, in addition to our congratulations, we wish him success and good luck.

10.14 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: This order is of very great interest to me, because I have been interested in the Lancashire cotton industry for the whole of my life. I was one of those who were opposed to the first Cotton Board which was made possible by the Act of 1939. Having felt rather strongly, it was rather strange that I should be asked to serve on it, as one of the three permanent members, in 1940. I took up that position for a very short time, but subsequently resigned, after which it was somewhat re-organised.
This new order and the new Cotton Board will fulfil a great purpose. The President of the Board of Trade has mentioned that the industry was blamed between the wars for many things which I believe were not its fault at all. The industry was blamed for inefficiency and for all kinds of things which were not its fault in the least, but which were due to world-wide conditions into which I do not propose to go tonight. This new Cotton Board, although I do not agree with it entirely, may be capable of very great good to the industry. The industry has regained its importance in the commerce of the country as a whole owing to the necessity for increased exports. It is the one industry which can, with efficiency, extend our much needed exports at the present time. There are still many great and efficient men in the industry, and I feel that the question whether this order is really beneficial to the industry and the country will depend first on the Minister's appointing the right men in the industry to serve on the Board. It is a very great responsibility. For good or for ill it is coming into force in the very near future. I wish it well, but I hope that the Minister will see to it that he does secure the very best elements in Lancashire to serve on the Board.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated upon this order. It will be welcomed throughout Lancashire and throughout the industry. I should, in particular, like to welcome the suggestion he threw out—it was new to me—and which seems

to me a matter of very great importance, that there shall be a welfare levy on the lines of the miners' welfare levy which was introduced following the Sankey Report, and which was, regrettably, the only proposal in the Sankey Report which was introduced. It is not without significance that this should be the second time in two successive sitting days that Westminster should be discussing the cotton industry. It is about time that happened. Some of us have been pressing for this to happen for some time. I hope we shall now see that the proceedings in Westminster are for a little time as all-Lancashire an affair as the Cup Final. The right hon. Gentleman himself is entitled to a very great deal of the credit in this matter. Since he took up his appointment he has kept in contact with the cotton industry, and he has won a very great deal of genuine affection in the industry, and genuine respect for the efforts he is now making to get this industry on its feet again and to increase production.
There are one or two points I should, like to make about the order as it is drawn, although I do not object to any of it. I do not want to damn it with faint praise. But if I say it is not like the curate's egg, I make this exception, that it is good in particular parts; but it is not necessarily sufficiently strong, it is not necessarily sufficiently good, it is not necessarily sufficiently large. But there is nothing in it to which I object. One point of real importance—and I think I know what the right hon. Gentleman will say in answer to this—is the method of communication between the Board and the Government, the method of making representations; because, after all, so many of the powers that the Board are given are really advisory powers. Their powers over the industry are dependent upon voluntary representation. I think it is right to say that the response from both sides, on the whole, has been good during the time the Board has operated, but when they come to consider steps that ought to be taken—and there is considerable unanimity about some of the early steps that ought to be taken—to increase production the question will arise how they are to make representations. Any suggestion I make now has no merit of novelty. It is the sort of suggestion that has been handed about Lancashire for a considerable time. It is a case of what Lan-


cashire said with one voice in 1945 being considered at Westminster in 1948.
The one vital point is air-conditioning machinery. It is really vital. No one doubts it is difficult, but conditions in many of the mills' spinning rooms are such that modern air-conditioning is really necessary if we are to get first-class results. What can the Cotton Board do about that? How can they make representations about that? It should be included amongst what should be subject to subsidy. I do not know if it was so included, but it ought to be, as I think it will be; but assuming it is not, how do they make representations about it? How do they present reports, and so on? I do not doubt there is the fullest confidence between the chairman of the Cotton Board and the President of the Board of Trade. From what I have seen, I am certain that Sir Raymond Streat can get on the telephone any day, speak to the President of the Board of Trade, and put forward to him any urgent matter. But I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman's own powers are about air-conditioning machinery, or how far he makes representations to the Minister of Supply, and whether the Minister of Supply finds he is not responsible for it, or that it is some other Department, and that then we go on to steel allocation, and so on. The question of air-conditioning machinery is important.
One other matter to which I wish to refer is again a commonplace, about which the President of the Board of Trade knows. Supposing, on the question of overtime, those concerned come to the conclusion that the real factor preventing many people opting for overtime is that of taxation on overtime, how are representations met? Are they given effect to? What communication can they have with the Chancellor, and how is the united voice of the industry to make itself felt on such a question? There are many similar and familiar questions, such as staggered hours of married women workers. In Oldham, up to 28th March, and again from October, they will be working from nine o'clock in the morning till seven o'clock at night; but the shops do not open till nine o'clock in the morning and close at six o'clock in the evening, with the result that they are open only for the whole of the time during which the married women are working in the mills. This is a

difficult problem, and consideration may have to be given to the question whether to increase the number and variety of goods sold in the canteens. The President knows—and I am sure he has already noted it from another place—the importance of up-grading the standard of goods in the canteens, including the allowances, so as to bring them into conformity with other industries. I am quite sure the Cotton Board would support that.
The other part of the order which is very welcome is that dealing with industrial disease. It is right that we should refer to perhaps the worst of the two great diseases which afflict the cotton industry, byssinicosis, which was the subject of a campaign which went on for years to try to get it scheduled in the Workmen's Compensation Act as an industrial disease; a campaign which met resistance after resistance, in spite of the fact that pneumoconiosis and similar diseases in other industries had already been scheduled—and it took us many years to get even that included. This is a great step forward in that direction, and we feel that we ought to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way it has been included in the order.
I am sorry to have to mention one small niggling point, and I do so only because of its urgency, and because I now have the opportunity. The Minister did say that he had consulted all the trade unions in the industry. I should like his attention for one moment on this, because I am trying to put to him something which I want him to investigate straight away. I am told that there is considerable feeling among some of the smaller trade unions that they have not been consulted. I know he has consulted all the main textile unions, but I am told that the Association of Supervisory Officers and Technicians has not been consulted, and not invited to participate in the conferences. I am told—a matter of no small importance—that the union representing the men who stoke the fires in the steam mills has never been consulted in these matters, and feels it ought to be. I hope he will see that they are invited to the meeting with the Prime Minister on 22nd March; that would be appreciated, and I think it right that it should be done in order that the meeting may be fully representative of everybody


in the industry. Having said that, I repeat my welcome of this order, which is an exceedingly important one. It is certainly a step in the right direction, and I hope and believe it will bring good results.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) in saying that Lancashire welcomes this order. It is notable that the only discordant note was struck by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), who is not a Lancashire Member, and I felt that some of his arguments did not take into account the discussions we had, both in Committee and in the House, on the Industrial Organisation Act, in which we covered the appointment of independent members, and so on. Obviously, if the President of the Board of Trade has the appointment of independent members he must have some say in their qualifications. We need not bother too much about that sort of objection.
I feel that this order is in line with the spirit and intentions of the Industrial Organisation Act, on which in its final stages there was general agreement between all parties in the House. It is encouraging, this most important industry to remain in private enterprise, should be the first industry to be dealt with under this Act. It is a chance for private enterprise in the cotton industry, and I hope that they will take this chance which will undoubtedly be their last chance.

Sir J. Barlow: Does the hon. Member suggest that nationalisation can achieve better results?

Mr. Shackleton: I am making no suggestions at all at the moment. The hon. Member will agree that it is desirable, since we have harmony between employers and employees growing in the industry, that we should develop it. It is desirable that this order should be made the best use of, that we should now see Lancashire develop itself, and that the cotton industry, under the terms laid down, should be enabled to achieve a degree of efficiency which it did not obtain in the past for reasons with which we are not concerned at the moment.
I wish to refer to this question of labour utilisation referred to in Schedule 1.

During the Committee stage on the Industrial Organisation Act, we discussed whether or not development councils which might be set up would be entitled to go into such questions as joint production machinery. I do not see how, if they are to investigate labour utilisation, that particular subject can be burked. I do not want to press the Minister too hard, but it is a point which will have to be faced up to in the industry. I believe that this order is of great importance. It continues the work of the Cotton Board which has been of great significance to Lancashire in the past.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Burke: I welcome this order. For many years before the war some of us fought for this kind of thing to happen in the cotton industry. We had an Act passed in 1939, which went some of the way towards bringing unification in regard to both sides of the industry. That Act, unfortunately, had to be shelved. If that Act had been proceeded with, the pernicious system of "shuttle kissing" would have been ended. I was surprised to find that this is still in operation in a large part of the mills. I had a case brought to my notice this weekend of a woman who had to be dismissed from a mill because she was suffering from tuberculosis. She was teaching women alongside her how to thread shuttles by "shuttle kissing." This is something which has caused an enormous amount of ill-health among the operatives. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind this important point, and see that this pernicious system is put an end to under this order.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), I am sorry to say, seemed to think that my remarks had been political. What I said in the concluding part of my speech about the history of the industry between the inter-war years was, I thought, completely non-controversial. I was only repeating the views of the working party which was representative of both sides of the industry, and I think my general judgment on that subject that many of the ills and difficulties of the industry were the responsibility not of Lancashire but of world conditions, was, I think, subscribed to by the hon. Member for


Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow). Certainly what I said about City finance in the boom of 1920 is surely something endorsed by Members of all parties. I should be very surprised if the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch does not support what I said. He raised a number of points which I think certainly need an answer. One of them was when he referred to paragraph 1 (3):
The Board may enter into such agreements, acquire such property and do such things, as may in the opinion of the Board be necessary or desirable for the exercise of any of their functions, and may dispose as they think fit of any property acquired by them.
I can reassure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is common form and is, in fact, taken over word for word from paragraph 19 of the Schedule to the Cotton Industry Act of 1940. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look it up, he will see that is the case. In any case, the phrase is qualified by the statement that these are to be
necessary or desirable for the exercise of any of their functions.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised a number of points in connection with paragraph 4 (6). I can assure him there is no substance in the difficulty he raised. It had exactly the same effect on me when I read it. May I give him the results of the inquiries I made? If the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads it again he will see it is mandatory on the Board—I do not refer to the Board of Trade, but the Cotton Board—to maintain this register and keep on it any undertaking still in being. The idea of the paragraph is to avoid having the register cluttered up with dead concerns and although, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out, there is no provision in sub-paragraph (6) about appeal as to whether a particular firm is dead or not, if he will look at the earlier part of the paragraph he will find it is mandatory on the Board——

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The point is, what happens if the Cotton Board says a particular firm is dead and that firm says it is not? Who decides?

Mr. Wilson: I should have thought that if a firm says it is not dead, that is a pretty good answer that it must be alive. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that sub-paragraph (2) is the over-riding Clause:

The Board shall enter in a register … the name of every person who has made an application to be registered. …
When the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at sub-paragraph (6), he will see that if there is an error, if the Board has not registered a firm which shows that it is not dead by making an application, the Board is in fact bound to accede to that application.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This does seem very important. If the President of the Board of Trade looks at sub-paragraph (6) he will see that the Board "may, if they have reasonable cause to believe" and that seems to give them complete discretion. I do not believe, subject to what the President of the Board of Trade says, that sub-paragraph (2) over-rules that.

Mr. Wilson: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong.
The Board may, if they have reasonable cause to believe that any person whose name is entered in the register no longer carries on business in the industry, by notice in writing inform that person of their intention to remove his name from the register.
But if that person makes a come back, then that is the end of the business. The Board shall enter in the register the name of that person. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will refer this to his legal advisers I am sure he will be quite satisfied about it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked how this £250,000 was reached. We went very carefully into the expenses paid and found that the average expenses were somewhat below this figure and, taking into account the additional functions that we hope may be exercised, we felt that £250,000 is a reasonable maximum. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants information at any time about expenditure I hope we will be able to give it to him.

Sir J. Barlow: Will the Minister say whether the contribution for cotton research comes out of that figure, or is it merely for the expenses of the Cotton Board?

Mr. Wilson: Contributions to the Shirley Institute come under that figure as they have done up to now. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), in common with other hon. Members, stressed the importance of the question of welfare. There has been no decision on this question yet, but I say most sincerely that I hope members of the Board


will look seriously at this matter because it is one on which we all, I am certain, feel very strongly. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) raised a number of different points. He will not, I am sure, expect me to go into details on each of those, because most of the matters, such as that of air-conditioning machinery, are matters for the Board to handle; but I can tell my hon. Friend that we have been in constant touch with them on different aspects of such problems. He mentioned, also, shop closing and canteens. As he knows, I have discussed these matters with members of the Board over the weekend.
There is the general point—and it is one with which the House is quite rightly concerned—regarding the procedure by which the Board can make its views effective. First of all, I keep in close touch with the Chairman of the Cotton Board; he can ring me on the telephone, or can come to see me whenever he wishes; and I frequently meet members of the Board in formal or informal session when it is my good fortune to be in Manchester. We shall keep, as we have kept, in close touch with members of the Board. In answer to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) I would like to say that I attach the greatest importance to getting the right people on this Board, both from the industrial and executive points of view. We have approached the industrial organisations, and we have had some suggestions and are getting more, although, of course, the final responsibility for appointment and nomination must be my own.
With regard to my hon. Friend's question about the smaller unions which have not been consulted, my answer is that he will realise that if we had consulted every union about this order, we should not have got it through as quickly as we have.

Mr. Hale: If I may interrupt my right hon. Friend, I would say that I quite accept that. I put my point, perhaps, in an unfortunate way, but they could be invited to Belle Vue, and invited to participate.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, and I would go farther than that. These unions had a copy of the draft order before them for several weeks, and it was up to them to make representations to me, or to the Cotton Board, and so far as the invitation to Belle Vue is concerned I think it was our idea, in holding that "jamboree," to make it possible for us to have direct contact with executives and district secretaries of all these smaller individual unions which we could not meet in the ordinary way, and also a selection of men and women from every mill in Lancashire. There has been full consultation, and in this connection I would say that the name of A.S.S.E.T. was mentioned. The hon. Member who raised that matter will like to know that my Department sent a letter to the secretary of A.S.S.E.T. on the question of the development council only this afternoon.
To sum up, the House has given a welcome to this order, and Lancashire will feel encouraged at the interest which so many hon. Members have taken in its welfare so late at night. It is a genuine interest and, as I have said, it is one which anyone concerned with the future of the country must genuinely feel. I hope that when subsequent orders are put before the House, as several will be during the course of the next few weeks, we shall be able to deal with them with the same degree of unanimity on both sides of the House as we have had on this order tonight.

Mr. Burke: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask whether he will deal with the point which I raised?

Mr. Wilson: I am well aware of the practice. It is a serious practice, and has been for a long time. I will ask the new Cotton Board to look into this question and to let me have its views upon it.

Resolved,
That the Draft Order entitled the Cotton Industry Development Council Order, 1948, proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, a copy of which Draft Order was presented on 27th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. G. Wallace.]

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: I wish to raise the subject of the employment of disabled persons, a matter which has not been debated in this House for some time. Indeed, I go so far as to say that it is so important a question that it might well, and with great advantage, have been raised by the Opposition on some Supply Day last year. Hon. Members will be aware of what is meant by a disabled person. Section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act is drawn very widely and allows anyone who suffers from a disability which prejudices his employment to register as a disabled person under the Act. The total number of registrations to date is 854,000; but I think that the Minister, who, I am glad to see, is here to deal personally with this matter, may well agree with me that the total number of disabled persons in the country will be over a million, rather than less, because there are many disabled persons who do not care to register as such, as they do not wish to show up their disability before an employment exchange.
Broadly speaking, there are three headings under which disabled persons come, namely: ex-Service men who have been injured in one of the two world wars; casualties of industry, and particularly of heavy industry, to which I shall refer in a moment or two; and, finally, those who have been disabled from birth, or who have suffered illness or accident which has disabled them. My first point is that the number of disabled persons unemployed forms a substantial part of the total unemployment problem with which the Ministry will have to deal. The "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for last February, gives the number of disabled persons unemployed in January as rather more than one-quarter of the total number of persons unemployed throughout the country.
The next point, one of which my right hon. Friend will be fully aware, is that this unemployment is not spread evenly over the country. If it were, the problem would be very much easier to deal with. There are some disabled persons in all regions: but where there is a condi-

tion of very nearly full employment in a region, the problem of finding work for these disabled persons is a comparatively easy one. It is within my knowledge, and I can testify to this, that business men who before the war would not have considered the employment of a disabled man, will, once there is a scarcity of labour, use disabled persons for jobs so as to set free fitter men to do other work. This is to the great benefit of the community as a whole.
I have said that disabled persons are not spread evenly all over the country. That is the fact. They are concentrated in four regions. In these four regions—Scotland, Wales, the Northern and North-Western regions of England—no fewer than 330,000 persons have registered as disabled—half the total of disabled persons in the country. It also happens that in these four regions there is the highest percentage of unemployment. That is a very unfortunate fact for these disabled people. As a result, 46,000 disabled persons at present are unemployed, or were, at the time of the January account.
The percentages of unemployment are very disturbing. I will take the three major regions. In the North-East, containing the North-Eastern Development Area, it is 15.3 per cent. disabled persons unemployed in relation to the total number of persons who have registered as disabled; in Scotland it is 12.5 per cent.; and in Wales—and this is really very serious—it is 23.2 per cent. of the total, number of disabled persons. What are we going to do about it? The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act provides for certain things to be done. It is a very wide and a very good Act. It is possible to do almost anything that will help the disabled. In the first place, it lays down the employment quota for all employers who employ more than 21. That quota is 3 per cent. The Act makes provision for the designation of certain occupations which should be kept for employing the disabled. A 3 per cent. quota provides employment for about 450,000 persons; but there are 750,000 disabled persons, so that it would be necessary to raise the figure substantially to mop up the number of disabled. In the three main development areas it would have very little effect indeed. What would raising the quota to 5 per cent. do in the other regions? I think that it would probably


help to bring into employment a certain number of additional persons in those regions which do not suffer from very serious unemployment.
I have certain objections, and we must balance the advantages against the disadvantages. We on this side of the House—and I believe hon. Members on the other side, too, would be in support of this—do not like the idea of charity. I feel that quotas to some extent, still more some designated employments, such as lift attendants, car-park attendants, are very poor forms of employment, too near to charity for my liking. We ought to go in for a greater degree of rehabilitation and specialised training of disabled persons so that they may be able to take their full part in the work of the community to the great benefit of the country. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
I want to put certain definite questions to the Minister. In the first place, what would the Minister say about further surveys being made by his advisory committees on disabled unemployment throughout the country? He may say that things are splendid, but I am not so sure. A case came to my notice quite recently. I happened to be in an outlying part of my constituency and I found that there is quite a large pocket of disabled persons in the Blackburn area. The Blackburn area—I do not want to stress this unduly and I am not raising it as a constituency matter, for this kind of thing may happen in other parts of the country—is an area of fairly full employment. We have a diversity of industry and very little difficulty about finding employment for these people provided they are fit to be put into employment. My tentative conclusion—I cannot draw more than that—is that there may be among these people fairly large numbers of severely disabled persons who are suitable only for employment under sheltered conditions. I will make reference to them in a few months. For these cases, I feel that the disabled advisory committees should throughout the country make a close assessment of the position in order to identify these pockets of severely disabled persons with a view to the Minister quickly making provision for them through the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation.
My next point is the provision of rehabilitation training centres. How much

more quickly could they be provided and how much more done in the way of residential centres such as the centre operating at Egham? Could not more be done in the way of building G.T.C.'s? Many have been closed down in the last few years. Would it not be possible to employ these people, to use even a very small proportion, for the specialised training of disabled persons to take part in some particular industry?
The next point is the need for speed in carrying out the distribution of industry policy. That is for the President of the Board of Trade rather than for the Minister of Labour, but it is a joint concern. I feel that those who are responsible for disabled persons will press this question on the Board of Trade as strongly as possible. In particular, what is needed is the building of standard factories and other factories in the development areas as quickly as possible because this is a development area problem. If once we can solve the general employment problem of the development areas, I believe we will reduce this disabled employment problem to the same proportions as exist in the other regions where the percentage of unemployed is not very great and the numbers are comparatively incidental.
In this connection, would it be possible, in the other development areas, to set up some kind of scheme like that which was advocated by the committee over which the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) presided. The Minister will know what is meant. That committee made a recommendation that certain factories should be set up in South Wales with definite provision that a certain proportion of men suffering from silicosis and pneumoconiosis should be employed. Would it be possible to do something of the kind in the other two major development areas? From what I know about the problem of the industrial belt of Scotland, there are cruelly disabled men who are casualties of heavy industry. I believe something should be done for them and probably also in the Northeastern Development Area for those people who have broken down in the work of the coalmines, blast furnaces, and so on. These men are now so severely disabled that they cannot possibly take part again in heavy industry.
Finally, there is recognised under the Act the need that these persons shall be


employed under sheltered conditions. The point, therefore, I want to put to the Minister is, can something be done to speed up the building of remploy factories; and, finally, could he consider starting some home schemes—not, I think, as have been mentioned, such crude things as basket making—but something really useful to these persons and something that will be bound up with the type of work that is being carried on.

10.56 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am very sorry that I have to rise at this moment and prevent one or two others speaking, but my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot), who raised this matter—and I thank him sincerely for raising it—has, though not at undue length, covered such a lot of ground that I must try in the time left to reply to him, though I could not possibly tonight deal with all he mentioned. I was in the House when the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act was passed with the good will of all Members at that time. It embodies a pledge to disabled persons that they will be cared for. We must fulfil that pledge and nothing must stand in the way of our doing so. At the moment, however, there are difficulties in the way and I should like to mention them. I am not at all satisfied that we are going as fast as we ought to go, and I am grateful for whatever help I can get from Members of the House in drawing the attention of the public to the matter, because it is a live, human problem.
I should like, in a catalogue sort of way, to go through the points raised. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the number unemployed was not regionally distributed. In fact, practically half of the total of unemployed disabled persons are in three regions—Wales, the North-west and London. London, strangely enough, has a big proportion. Unfortunately, the Act does not permit us to have a regional quota. We must have a general quota to cover the country as a whole. The question was asked whether it would be possible to increase that quota to 5 per cent. There are serious problems about this quota and its increase and I have asked the National Advisory Council on the Disabled Persons Act to look at it again, and they are meeting, I believe, on Thursday.
The point is that where the disabled are under 3 per cent. of the staff employed, an employer is not expected to dismiss an able-bodied man to make room for a disabled man, but if there is a vacancy it must be filled by engaging a disabled person if there is one capable of doing the work. That is the first problem. Similarly, where the employer is below his quota, a disabled man can only be discharged on good cause shown, and the employer must replace him by another disabled person drawn from the register. My hon. Friend said that the number of registrations was 850,000, but he thought it would be a million if everyone who was disabled registered. I should like to satisfy him that it would be nothing like that. At the time of registration a number of disabled did not register. They argued that if they registered the firm by whom they were employed would find out that they were disabled and would probably dismiss them. However, it was quite the opposite way round, because if a firm found that they had not the 3 per cent. disabled persons, they employed more, and a great number of firms have considerably more than the 3 per cent. laid down in the Act.
As some hon. Gentlemen know, time and again questions have been raised about employers not being willing to take on anybody over 55 years of age. A lot of these poor people are over 55, so that they have a double handicap which we have tried to get over. I am very grateful for the compliment to the Egham Centre. We see a lot in it. It has places for 200 persons for rehabilitation, and 3,700 have been through it, have been rehabilitated and placed in work. We hope this year to open another 12 centres. I will not take up the time of the House by reading out the list of the places which I have here but they are in different parts of the country, and are purely for rehabilitation. They will be non-residential centres within reach of the people who will go to them. Vocational training also plays a good part as well as rehabilitation. In the vocational training centres, in the period between January, 1945, and December, 1947, 10,000 were successfully trained. Those were people not requiring physical rehabilitation, but a trade. There are over 3,400 under training at the present time.
Reference has been made to the quite appropriately named Grenfell factories in South Wales for silicotics and pneumo-


coniotics. The Government are building the factories, which are being leased to employers on condition that they employ a certain proportion of the silicotics. It is easy to build a factory in a certain area for a group of people suffering from the same disease, but in another area where there is a heavy number of unemployed suffering from all sorts of diseases and maladies, it is not so easy. The Corporation is not allowing that to thwart them. I want to make it perfectly clear that it is only a programme at the moment, although I hope to see it become something more concrete. The Corporation is proceeding with its plans and development as rapidly as possible. There are to be 107 factories employing 10,000 people. We are going to do our best through the Corporation, with the assistance of Members of Parliament, to achieve that target. Our difficulty is suitable sites or premises, and we are trying to retain for this purpose many of the centres not required because of lack of training work. For instance, in a cotton town what are we to do with such a place? Shall we take it for a remploy factory or push it into the cotton industry for development?
There are problems like that, but we should be much encouraged and helped if Members of the House, especially those associated with local government, could help us by suggesting sites and by obtaining the co-operation of the corporations. It is not only the Corporation and the local authorities who can help; the voluntary bodies like the Lord Roberts workshops can also assist, but it is the Ministry of Labour with the Corporation which have primary responsibility. One hundred and seven is the target. We have not got a bulls-eye, or even an inner or a magpie, but we are on the target. We have 16 remploys in operation employing 800 persons. Some of them have already put into operation a scheme of home work for the poor persons, men or women, bedridden and crippled, or unable to get about. This is a scheme of work, very different from that course of sweated labour which we recall, because they get the work in the home paid for at the appropriate rate.
We hope to open 29 more of these factories this summer. The only thing that will hold us up will be the supply of building materials and equipment, and things of that sort. We are aiming to have 50

in operation by the end of this year, employing some 4,000 persons. That leaves a potential 6,000 behind, I know, but it is the nature of the problem and the circumstances of the time that are making things difficult for us. I make no complaint of hon. Members prodding all the time about this. I take the prod, but I pass it on to the appropriate Department. It must be felt that this Act has awakened the lively interest of hon. Members, and it is much easier for members of the public to keep their eye on it if questions are asked here from time to time. I think I can help my hon. Friend who raised this matter if I were to get into the official record——

Mr. Edward Evans: My right hon. Friend must get it on the official record. There is no one on the other side interested enough to hear it.

Mr. Isaacs: I am talking to hon. Members on this side who are interested.

Mr. Evans: It is a most disgraceful exhibition.

Mr. Isaacs: I hope to open Industrial Rehabilitation Centres this year at Felling. I do not know where that is. [An HON. MEMBER: "In County Durham."] Other centres will be at Leeds, Hull, Leicester, Cardiff, Swansea, Birmingham, Coventry, Manchester, Aintree, Edinburgh and Hillingdon. We shall go on and open others as opportunity presents itself. I hope I have covered most of the points my hon. Friend raised.
As I have said, the question of the quota is being further examined. I do not want to go into too much of a heresy hunt about that. Speaking generally, employers have played the game on this matter, and we are checking up to see whether there have been any wilful or deliberate evasions. I hope what I have said will satisfy my hon. Friend and others that we are alive to the difficulties and we realise the obligations placed upon us.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I only want in the two minutes at my disposal to raise three points very shortly. The first is the practice of employers dismissing persons after lump sum payments have been made. I do not want to go into details on this matter, but there are facts I could put forward and could elaborate at great length. I believe there are a great many


who are recorded as disabled and who are not being employed because they have settled a claim for workmen's compensation, but who could be brought into employment.
The second point is this. Yesterday I interviewed a lady in the textile industry who has lost a hand but who is working full time. She says that she could train others to do the same, and I believe there is ample scope for training disabled persons to work in productive industry. I do not believe we are doing this well enough. I am grateful to the hon. Member who raised this matter. I think it is one of the most important Debates on the Adjournment we have ever had. The Disabled Persons Employment Board is a very finely conceived board, but——

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member means the Corporation.

Mr. Hale: Yes; but it does not move quickly enough. I have a great respect for my right hon. Friend, but I have to "carry the can" in Oldham. I have carried it 18 months, and I am a pretty good and patient can-carrier, but not for much longer. I ask him again, will he look at the question of Collins Mill in Oldham? We have got 14 people there at the moment and it is time that these men were doing something. I should be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would make a special effort to crown his work by seeing that the people get training. There are 900 disabled persons in Oldham and we want another centre there

11.10.p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the type of work being done in these re-employ factories. There is one in my constituency. I was promised that it would be opened in May, then in August, and to the best of my knowledge it is still not open. The staff is there, the attendants are there, and there are plenty of toys to put into Christmas crackers there; but, as far as I am aware, nothing has yet been done. I hope these people are not going to be compelled to go on filling Christmas crackers for the sake of finding them employment. We should have a more constructive approach in regard to these factories. It should be the policy of all concerned with this work to make the job fit the man, and not the man fit the job. There are all sorts of amazing devices which scientific research has discovered which could be supplied to these disabled persons, whether limbless, armless or whatever it may be, and I should like to know that the Minister is taking a great interest in furthering this work, such as is being done at Roehampton and Queen Elizabeth's Training College, which are both making a great contribution.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eleven Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.